>>>>> "MM" == Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: MM> What if, instead of requiring separate, unbundled packaging of MM> dependencies the first time they're required, they instead get MM> documented somewhere. The _second_ time something needs the same MM> thing, the packagers for both the first and second package work MM> together to split out that dep into its own package. FPC has, on a couple of instances, approved this kind of thing, but. really it doesn't work well. Why? Because you can't depend on the maintainers of the other package to do much of anything. Now you have either the second package held up because someone else doesn't want to expend the effort, or you have the bits properly unbundled but the first package never updates (or gets pulled from the distro) because nobody wants to put in the work to unbundle. MM> It would also mean fewer unloved packages which were created solely MM> to fill a dep need — and maybe even orphaned if that need changes. I don't see how that's a benefit, really. A separate package with a separate upstream that can be tracked and updated almost automatically with all of our fancy upstream release monitoring tools, versus some unloved bundled of bits that is completely ignored because someone just imported some random version once and then never touched it? I know which one I'd pick. In fact, I believe the existence of these new upstream release monitoring tools makes the argument for unbundling even stronger. - J< -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
