On 6 October 2015 at 14:49, Jared K. Smith <jsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: >> >> I'm putting up another pass at the proposal, as there were some >> critical typographical errors in the last one that caused confusion >> (there were a couple places where I wrote "bundled" and meant >> "unbundled" and the reverse). This revised version should be clearer. >> > > > I've gone over this in my head a number of times, and wonder if it might > make more sense to come up with a policy that wasn't necessarily so black > and white, and allows for more shades of gray. Remixing an idea that Spot > presented at Southeast LinuxFest a few years back -- what if we assigned a > certain number of "points" or "demerits" for each instance of bundling (or > other packaging transgressions). > > It would then be easier to say "Critical path packages must have 0 points" > and "Ring 1" packages must have three or fewer points", and "COPR doesn't > care about points", etc... > > I think this strikes a fair balance between promoting packaging hygiene and > recognizing that not all upstream communities feel the same way Fedora > packagers do about bundled libraries. > Extra points if we can put this in as an RPM header and you can have a plugin which says "I only want N point packages" > -- > Jared Smith > > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
