On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 04:18:00PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 09/10/2015 04:06 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 09:03 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>>
>>
>>On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.c
>>om> wrote:
>>>I assume that subject line got your attention.
>>>
>>Most definitely. :)
>>
>>So it's basically the same but without FPC as a gatekeeper? Do you
>>have any proposals for enforcement? A periodic query of Provides
>>(bundled-foo) and a BZ requesting a review? Sometime projects
>>enable unbundling over time.
>>
>
>
>I don't know that enforcement is strictly necessary. Maintainers that
>care will self-enforce. Maintainers that don't care won't be aided by
>this.
Are you talking about upstream maintainers of fedora maintainers?
I took this to mean Fedora maintainers, not upstream, but on second
read it seems equally true in both cases.
The cause of the majority of cases of bundling is upstream
maintainers who
violently refuse to comprehend the evilness of bundling and who use bundling
because "it's so convenient" to them.
Use of terms like "violent" and "evil" belies an attitude toward
upstream developers that I don't believe helps either upstream or
Fedora.
>"Enforcement" implies adding more heavy process, which
is part of the
>problem this is trying to avoid.
You don't seem to be aware about the fact FPC already tries to enforce
unbundling. Yes, this is a heavy and time-consuming process, esp. on
occasions upstream's behave stubborn and refuse to listen.
I doubt OP is unaware of this.
--
Paul W. Frields
http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - -
http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
The open source story continues to grow:
http://opensource.com