On Wednesday, 07 October 2015 at 21:17, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > Meeting summary > --------------- [...] > * #1483 Decision on bundling policy in the Fedora Package Collection > (sgallagh, 18:11:40) > * LINK: http://paste.fedoraproject.org/276064/44243383/ is sgallaghs > proposal without the critpath distinction (nirik, 18:43:49) > * AGREED: Adjust the packaging policy as described in > http://paste.fedoraproject.org/276064/44243383/ (+5, 3, -1) > (sgallagh, 18:57:44) > * ACTION: tibbs|w to inform FPC and work on removing the anti-bundling > stuff from the guidelines (sgallagh, 18:59:17) This was handled far too quickly and without considering the full consequences of the change that was passed. Also, the way you handled this caused a lot of resentment among the FPC members (or at least that's the impression I have). Now, personal feelings aside, I do have some technical points to make, with my FPC hat on. The new wording completely drops the requirement for package maintainers to at least attempt unbundling on their own if upstream doesn't want to support it. In many cases, it's quite trivial and should be required, especially if upstream has a testsuite and it passes with downstream unbundling. You completely ignored the case when upstream is dead and cannot be contacted (and, for example the upstream of the bundled code is not). Additionally, there's no requirement to maintain sanity in the bundled Provides: naming. You should have at least mandated that the maintainer checks existing packaged and/or bundled package names and uses the same name if the code is bundled in a new package. FPC or at least the packaging list should be consulted in case of any doubts here. We have considerable experience in this area and we (used to) maintain a canonical list of bundled(foo) provides. I believe it makes sense that we keep doing it. Finally, the wording speaks about libraries, completely ignoring the fact that very often, only single files or even code snippets are bundled and these need to be tracked as well. You haven't defined what a "library" is. Regards, Dominik -- Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org "Faith manages." -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations" -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
