-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 09/30/2015 11:37 AM, Chuck Anderson wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 08:35:41AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> * All packages not in the critical path whose upstreams have no
> mechanism to build against system libraries '''must''' be
> contacted publicly about a path to supporting system libraries.
> If upstream refuses, this must be recorded in a link included in
> the spec file. * All packages not in non-critical path whose
> upstreams have no mechanism to build against system libraries
> '''may''' opt to carry bundled libraries, but if they do,
they
> '''must''' include {{{Provides: bundled(<libname>) =
<version>}}}
> in their RPM spec file.
In this last bullet oint, did you mean "all packages not in the
critical path", or did you really mean what it literally says
above "all packages not in the NON-critical path". If the latter,
I suggest a wording change: "all packages in the critical path".
That was a typo. It should read "All packages not in the critical
path". I fixed it on the FESCo ticket. Sorry about that. (Some of this
proposal was reworded as I edited it and I made a few mistakes in the
process). The other was that I forgot to note that the FPC should
retain the right to decide on any exceptions to the set of packages
defined as "critical path" (or WG extensions).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iEYEARECAAYFAlYMDzkACgkQeiVVYja6o6MwewCgmY2jC0Jcl+Rur2qHFnWxmdiY
odwAnj8KRSr3yODu4gIIMxgJJe79yfTW
=IeEr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----