2015-10-09 0:42 GMT+02:00 Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx>: > Neal Gompa wrote: >> Not that I don't agree that we should pursue unbundling whenever >> possible, but I don't remember any contract or terms that explicitly said >> *packagers* do the work of *developers* to re-architect >> applications/services/etc to do stuff like that. In fact, I thought *the >> whole point* of RPM packaging (and indeed packaging in general) was to >> make it so that you could reliably build and install software. Spiting >> upstream is just asking for trouble, too. > > The whole point of a distribution is to ship a well-integrated set of > packages, not a bunch of isolated sandboxes that don't talk to each other. > If we ship the latter, we become entirely redundant and provide no service > whatsoever to our users. > > I consider unbundling to be about integration, not development. In most > cases, you will be making little to no changes to the application's actual > code, just fix its broken build system. > Erm, it may be a wording problem, but the new policy should require you to unbundle in that case. >> Personally, I would consider "upstream does not support it" a very valid >> reason to not unbundle. It gets very hard to pin down where the problems >> are caused when the rug is pulled out from under you. Some applications do >> all kinds of things with their libraries or code chunks to make it safe or >> useful for their needs. > > As I said, either fix the application to work with the library or fix the > library to work with the application (and we need to force our library > maintainers to be more flexible when it comes to the latter – there too, > shipping an integrated set of packages is more important than blindly > following upstream's wishes). > >> We should, of course, default to unbundling. But if it's not feasible, we >> need a firm policy on how to include the software and continually engage >> on developing solutions that are appealing to everyone on improving the >> modularity of software and usefulness of reusing system copies of >> libraries. > > It is almost always feasible. The new policy just encourages packagers to > not even try! > No, the new policy encourages packagers to be *honest*, and not hide issues under the carpet for stupid reasons. As long as guidelines are not enforced, relaxing them won't do much more harm. I prefer knowing the problem rather than pretending it does not exist. H. > Kevin Kofler > > -- > 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
