Matthew Miller wrote: > When the packager has reasoned belief that debundling is actively bad > in some way for this package, I think we should trust the packager. I > know not everyone on this thread agrees, but in general, Fedora > *always* places a high level of trust in our packagers to make the > right call in all sorts of situations. Here, perhaps some of the > current (former?) pages on the rationale for unbundling could be moved > into the Unbundling SIG's space and used as guidance. I am worried that a lot of packagers will just refuse to do anything that upstream does not support, either: * because they ARE upstream, or * because they are too worried about offending upstream, or * because they are too lazy and/or too busy to rebase patches. And the often-cited fact that there are more and more upstreams not supporting unbundling only makes this WORSE and is actually a reason for MORE strictness in downstream policies, not less! The new policy does not require any kind of rationale for refusing, just saying "no" is enough to block everything. > Obviously we're not Debian, but I think this part from their Getting > Started guide applies to volunteer software projects in general: > > * We all are volunteers. > * You cannot impose on others what to do. > * You should be motivated to do things by yourself. > > <https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/start.en.html#socialdynamics> I find it funny that you are citing Debian in an attempt to support your point, because Debian actually has a "no bundled libraries" policy at least as strict as our old one. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
