Hi, > _MY_ question is, what can we (Fedora) do to make it clear that we have > clear cut rules for why we don't want packages providing internal > libraries? As long as it's explained to upstream why we have this guide, then we've really done all we can. Take Mono.Cecil. It's not in GAC as the API is not stable, so MonoDevelop and a few other packages all come with their own sources of Mono.Cecil which may or may not be the same as the ones we built Mono.Cecil with. As MD accesses it's own Mono.Cecil which it built (which is not in GAC), it is not likely to interfere with anything, however upstream will use that as a reason for including their own sources. Realistically, what can we do about it - nothing as if upstream want to do as they do then all we can do is remove the package or start submitting piles of bugs when things go wrong to try and force them around to our way of doing things. Some may, some may continue regardless. Bit of a bummer that... TTFN Paul -- Sie können mich aufreizen und wirklich heiß machen!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
