On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
I'm putting up another pass at the proposal, as there were some
critical typographical errors in the last one that caused confusion
(there were a couple places where I wrote "bundled" and meant
"unbundled" and the reverse). This revised version should be clearer.
I've gone over this in my head a number of times, and wonder if it might
make more sense to come up with a policy that wasn't necessarily so black
and white, and allows for more shades of gray. Remixing an idea that Spot
presented at Southeast LinuxFest a few years back -- what if we assigned a
certain number of "points" or "demerits" for each instance of bundling
(or
other packaging transgressions).
It would then be easier to say "Critical path packages must have 0 points"
and "Ring 1" packages must have three or fewer points", and "COPR
doesn't
care about points", etc...
I think this strikes a fair balance between promoting packaging hygiene and
recognizing that not all upstream communities feel the same way Fedora
packagers do about bundled libraries.
--
Jared Smith