On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 02:33:34AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > 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. > The thing is, it should NOT matter at all how upstream feels. If we treat > unbundling as something to do with upstream, we already failed. Unbundling > must be done whether upstream likes it or not, even in upstream's spite! And > it's the packager's job to do it: "upstream does not support it" is NOT a > valid excuse for not unbundling! In many cases, this effectively means creating a Fedora-specfic fork of the project. Even if we accept unbundling as goal in itself is a given, there just aren't enough people in the world who have the inclination, time, and expertise to do this. Especially when you consider that for most projects, the only people with *deep* understanding of this kind of invasive change *are* the upstream. So, in practice, assuming inclination, time, and *just enough* expertise, what we risk is a debundled package with new, unique bugs, possibly with security implications of their own. That's not getting us closer to the goal, even if it feels like it's a rule that *ought* to. There are people with inclination and expertise, but not time. The new rules will help with that; their time and expertise can be focused where it has the most meaningful impact, which might actually be on automated tooling rather than debundling. -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
