On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 08:48:43AM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 23 February 2017 at 12:24, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski > <dominik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thursday, 23 February 2017 at 14:23, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > I have nothing against delivering latest and greatest software to our > > users and this proposal is not against that goal, either. However, > > package maintainers are not supposed to simply take what upstream > > releases and pass it on to the users without considering the impact. > > I think that may be the differing of opinions in this discussion as I > don't think there is a definitive answer. Some packagers believe that > whatever upstream requires to get the software is what happens, other > packagers believe that it isn't. Many packagers just want the XYZ > package to be there so they can build the thing they really care about > so if the upstream needed ten new dependencies.. we add 10 new > dependencies. Upstream may not allow packagers to have any viable choices. If upstream has added a new dependancy, there's no guarantee it is optional. So if the new version is required in Fedora, then often there's no choice but to accept the new dependancy. The alternative is to be stuck on the old (possibly insecure) version forever, or fork the code, neither of which are really acceptable options. Even if the dependancy is optional, disabling it may cause Fedora to loose functionality vs the previously packaged version, so it is in effect mandatory. Any rules about adding new dependencies in Fedora will quickly come up against these hard realities, when dealing with new upstream versions. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
