On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 04:52:48PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>people not declaring their bundles and not care about policies
did the
>same before: not declare it and not ask for exceptions - there is a
>logical flow in "now that i don't need to ask FPC i don't declare
it"
Exactly, that's what I would consider a serious regression.
But re-read what you're just replying to. The thing is, there's all
sorts of bundling going on all throughout Fedora under the radar. It's
like banning alcohol. It might seem like a policy that'd benefit
society overall, but turns out that it doesn't make people stop
drinking — just drives it underground. This approach encourages people
to, uh, drink responsibly. There's still regulation and labeling.
Now, if only we could figure out how to _tax_ bundling, we'd be all
set.
This proposal effectively is a carte-blanche to bundling and
carelessness, which I would expect to seriously impact the quality
of Fedora.
It seems pretty careful to me, and a lot more prescriptive than
"carte-blanche".
>the opposite is more likely: people trying to avoid the FPC burden now
>can declare it without fearing somebody takes notice and points out a
>violation
If they don't care or are not aware about the consequences of their
bundling?
Like I've said many times before, I feel Fedora needs a serious
vulnerability in a widespread bundled or static library, such that
people finally comprehend the harm of bundling.
Of course, we've certainly had this happen in the past. I hear you
saying that we're losing that lesson and need to re-learn it. But, I
don't think we've actually forgotten it — I certainly haven't. I just
think we need to try a different approach, because the old one worked
well to a point, but also comes at a big cost.
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader