On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Adam Williamson <adamwill@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 11:02 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > > > > > "SG" == Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@redhat.com> writes:
>
> SG> Right now, we have a policy that essentially forbids source code
> SG> from being bundled into a package.
>
> Technically we only care if that bundled code is actually compiled
> in.

I don't think that's the case. The text in the main guidelines page is
rather broad:

"Fedora packages should make every effort to avoid having multiple,
separate, upstream projects bundled together in a single package.
However, when this is unavoidable, packagers must apply for a Bundling
Exception with the Fedora Packaging Committee."

That just says 'multiple, separate upstream projects' (nothing about
being 'compiled in'), and implies that absolutely any such case can
only be included with an explicit 'Bundling Exception'.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net


​In fact, I had this thrown against me when I tried to package a web application a few years ago for Fedora. Sure, it led to me packaging tinymce and tinymce-spellchecker (which are now the banes of my existence because I don't know what to do with them), but there was nothing I could do to get the upstream development to make things better. I chugged along for three years on that package, but I eventually gave up on it. I'm slightly bitter about that, but at the same time
​ I recognize that we need to make the effort to unbundle as much as possible.

We should definitely inject some more pragmatism into our policy, though. It's extremely difficult for certain classes of applications to make it into Fedora because the architecture makes it really difficult to comply (web applications, sandbox environment application platforms, etc.).

--
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!