2015-10-09 0:08 GMT+02:00 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > 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. > Thanks for doing that. > 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. > Ack, makes sense. > You completely ignored the case when upstream is dead and cannot be > contacted (and, for example the upstream of the bundled code is not). > This was discussed, I remember that this very point being raised by rishi. We agreed (but not voted) that packages with dead upstream should unbundle. I personally even consider that such packages should just be dropped in the long-term. => I don't think anyone is against strict unbundling for dead upstream package. Problem is how we detect that a package has a dead upstream :/ > 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. > *nods* If FPC is willing to do that, that's fine with me. > 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. > Yeah, many packages bundle crypto and checksum code, and these needs to be tracked. Any wording clarifications should be welcome, but I guess we'll have to review this topic during fesco meeting again. Regards, H. > 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 -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
