On Sunday, October 31, 2010 04:41:14 pm Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 12:01:25AM +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > > As per the thread on advisory-board; > > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ > > advisory-board/2010-October/009577.html > > > > I urge you to consider to allow exceptions like these for the greater > > benefit of your users -and thus upstream, through Fedora. > > The questions are how? and why? > > Possible how: Allow apps to bundle libraries period. > Possible why: Because users are going to run the apps anyway and if they > come from Fedora, at least we can be providing updates to the broken > versions as the fixes become available instead of relying on the user to > seek them out. > > Possible how: Apps are allowed to bundle libraries as long as the > maintainer commits to keeping the app ported to the newest version of the > bundled library within Fedora at all times. > Possible why: Security fixes and bugfixes to the library are going to be > pushed to the latest versions of packages in Fedora. We need to make sure > that the libraries are kept in sync so that we can consume those fixes > quickly if a problem arises. We need to make sure that there is someone > able to make fixes (the maintainer) in case a problem arises. > This means rebasing the bundled library and applying upstream's changes to such bundled -but latest- version, right? This would be perfectly reasonable, including the former option, possibly including as much FES effort as possible. However, I suppose with the latter option, in the case of Passenger, I'm not sure whether they would see it as a breach of the trademark license. I suppose we could look at whether something similar has ever occurred with Mozilla? Kind regards, Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
