Re: Need feedback on what constitutes "unbundling" a library

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:25:53PM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>   
>> My understanding is that to completely unbundle a library, whether a 
>> solib, a PHP lib, a Python module, whatever, you need to remove it from 
>> the upstream tarball prior to the build (i.e. modified tarball, not a 
>> patch or rm -rf in prep),
>>     
>
> This part at least is not necessary.  We only modify the upstream tarball
> when there's a reason that we can't ship the upstream source (which does
> coincide with bundling of some patent-encumbered media libraries.)
>
>   
Ok, fair enough, as long as it's pulled in prep.
>> and then use flags, symlinks, or whatever is 
>> appropriate to use the system lib for building and running the program.  
>> I don't feel like including the bundled version and making sure it's not 
>> used is enough.  You *can't* really make sure it's not used if it's present.
>>
>>     
> <nod>  This is the part I'd like us to discuss and decide.  With pure python
> code, I can audit a particular release fairly confidently but in many cases,
> that doesn't provide protection when the next release is made (as upstream
> may have made a mistake when importing the compat library in their new
> code).  Scons is an interesting case in that they've done a very good job of
> making it so that won't happen either.
>
> I'm not sure about whether that's possible for other languages and also
> whether we want to ignore the technical possibilities in order to make it
> easier to review -- ie: "Just delete the bundled versions and patch the
> source code so it runs" is easier to test if you're a non-programmer than
> "you don't have to delete the bundled version if certain other technical
> requirements for marking the library private are met of which both the
> reviewer and the packager would have to be knowledgable".
>
>   
Easier to review is typically the best path to full compliance.  
Probably the easiest to script for audit purposes, as well.
> -Toshio
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> packaging mailing list
> packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging


-- 
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

--
packaging mailing list
packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging


[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite Forum]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux