On Thu, 2015-10-08 at 10:55 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote: > Yes, it seems the quantity over quality view won. :( This is a false dichotomy. The ultimate metric of quality is whether the distribution contains a working copy of the software you want to run. Bundling is a maintenance concern for _people working on the distribution_. From the consumer's perspective it makes zero difference whether a particular library is bundled or not, as long as the app works. Any undiscovered security bug (for instance) will be there in the unbundled copy of the library too. And, to be honest, we're failing at tracking bundling _already_, regardless of this particular change in policy. clamav bundles a copy of llvm, ffs. Policies that are out of line with reality are bad policy: the war on drugs does not fix drug abuse, vagrancy laws do not fix poverty, and the war on bundling merely ensures that bundled software goes unreported. We should acknowledge that bundling is a real thing that solves real problems for both app developers and end users, we should codify it in our policies, and we should build the tools that enable us to track and manage it rather than pretend it doesn't happen just because a package passed review once. So yes, it makes life harder for the people building the distribution, that's the entire point. That's labor that _we_ take on precisely so our users don't have to care. That's not "quantity over quality", that's quality as job one. - ajax -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
