On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 12:39 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>> "MM" == Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> writes:
MM> That said, I do recognize that "provides high-quality packages" has
MM> also always been an underlying Fedora value even if unstated. But, I
MM> think that _that_ value should be in support of the Big Four, and in
MM> support of our mission in general, not a sacred beast for its own
MM> sake.
Well, for the FPC, high quality packaging is pretty much our only
mission. I'm trying to avoid veering off into hyperbole here, but if we
can't be focused on our specific mission then that kind of complicates
our job.
But if FESCo or the board or whoever wants to say that we no longer
really care about bundling, then FPC will stop caring. Right now we've
been told to care about bundling and so we developed all of this process
and rules to implement that directive.
Hi Jason,
I have the impression (which may be totally wrong) that you are taking
the binary approach here: either we care maximally or we do not care at
all.
It seem to me Stephen is making a proposal to tweak just one specific
aspect of packaging rule, that is a softer enforcement model. FPC still
has a truckload other good rules about packaging and nobody believes FPC
should stop caring about overall package quality.
I have mixed opinions myself about allowing bundling, on the one side it
makes some things worse, on the other hand, however it is sometimes a
way too step barrier to entrance. I've come to the conclusion I'd rather
see a softer approach with strong encouragement to use unbundled
libraries and a need to justify credibly why a bundled library is used
but not a hard rule against it in all cases with hard exceptions to be
doled out by the FPC, I think package review should be able to handle
it.
This risks making somewhat harder to police egregious mis-behavior, but
I am sure there are other ways to deal with offenders that willfully
break reasonable rules.
HTH,
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York