On 09/11/2015 06:10 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 12:06 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:51:42 -0700
Adam Williamson <adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 13:35 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
As for which components, it's not about specific examples[1].
It's
about solving the question in a generic way. We have quite a lot
of
software that isn't packaged for Fedora (either not started or
aborted
when the package review couldn't be passed) that has genuine
value.
I can certainly confirm that. I dug through quite a lot of review
requests yesterday to look at how the rules have been applied in
practice, and found several that have been abandoned because of
bundling issues. I'll just link one example -
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836810 - but it's
trivial
to find more.
But by the same token, a great deal of upstream projects don't bundle
things and are just fine packaged up in Fedora.
I don't think anyone was advocating a policy that all packages must
have a minimum of 1 (one) bundled library ;)
I agree that the discussion here needs to be more broad-based; see the
other thread fork. I was just providing support for Stephen's
contention that this is not some airy-fairy theoretical problem, there
are multiple examples of real things that people *wanted* to have
packaged that are not packaged because the unbundling process was too
onerous.
Arguably that is a testament of how heavy the bureaucracy in the
distribution has become not the "bundling" itself.
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
