Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 09/14/2015 02:18 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: Also, I'd like to be clear on this: whatever the outcome of this discussion, I want Fedora packagers to continue to work with their packages and upstreams to unbundle as much as possible. I think that this*does* lead to significant improvements

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Mon, 2015-09-14 at 16:54 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 12 September 2015 at 04:10, Adam Williamson > wrote: > > 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 > >

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 20:46 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > > On 09/11/2015 08:31 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > We certainly agree on that. > > > > > > which has already been > > > > answered by the board. > > > > ( people will first debate where to draw the line if that > > > >

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Mon, 2015-09-14 at 16:54 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 12 September 2015 at 04:10, Adam Williamson > wrote: > > 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 > >

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Mon, 2015-09-14 at 10:13 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > We also haven't established any kind of migration plan between the > two > repositories. In the darktable example, one of the reasons we ended > up > going back to the FPC and re-requesting an exception was that we > don't > have any

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 14 September 2015 at 10:43, Josh Boyer wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Adam Williamson >> wrote: >>> On Mon, 2015-09-14 at 10:13 -0400, Stephen

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2015-09-14 at 10:13 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > >> We also haven't established any kind of migration plan between the >> two >> repositories. In the darktable example, one of the reasons we ended

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Mon, 2015-09-14 at 11:09 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: > What we haven't managed to do yet is update the package review > > > process > > > to better account for the distinction, such as by adopting a > > > "COPR > > > first" model, where folks put a package up in COPR with bundled > > >

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 09/14/2015 09:57 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2015-09-14 at 16:54 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> On 12 September 2015 at 04:10, Adam Williamson >> wrote: >>> I agree that the discussion here needs to be more broad-based; see >>> the >>> other thread fork. I

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 14 September 2015 at 10:43, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Adam Williamson > wrote: >> On Mon, 2015-09-14 at 10:13 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> >>> We also haven't established any kind of migration plan

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 12 September 2015 at 04:10, Adam Williamson wrote: > 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

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 09:53:27AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > == Advantages to using shared libraries == > * Security/Bugs - When a bug or security vulnerability is located in > a library, it needs to be patched in only a single package in order to > fix all applications using that

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:51:42 -0700 Adam Williamson 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 >

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 09/11/2015 05:51 PM, Adam Williamson 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

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

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 wrote: On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 13:35 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: As for which components, it's not about

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 18:27 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > > 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

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 12:06 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:51:42 -0700 > Adam Williamson 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 >

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 17:00 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > > On 09/10/2015 01:53 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > I assume that subject line got your attention. > > > > I know this is a long-standing debate and that this thread is > > likely > > to turn into an incomprehensible flamewar

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 09/10/2015 01:53 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: I assume that subject line got your attention. I know this is a long-standing debate and that this thread is likely to turn into an incomprehensible flamewar filled with the same tired arguments, but I'm going to make a proposal and then

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

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

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 12:59 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > Again, I don't actually think the answer here is "screw it, let's > bundle everything" If we want to talk about the wider issues here, btw, and we want something a bit more ambiguous and nuanced, I can also give you some interesting

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

2015-09-10 15:53 GMT+02:00 Stephen Gallagher : > I assume that subject line got your attention. > > I know this is a long-standing debate and that this thread is likely > to turn into an incomprehensible flamewar filled with the same tired > arguments, but I'm going to make a

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 09/11/2015 07:25 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: In a world where bundling was allowed, the package would likely have been approved on initial review; the only significant issues found in review were bundling-related. There are a couple of trivial issues noted in #c7, but those would have been

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 19:32 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > > On 09/11/2015 07:25 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > In a world where bundling was allowed, the package would likely > > have > > been approved on initial review; the only significant issues found > > in > > review were

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 09/11/2015 10:35 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > Actually, the opposite is true. RHEL has fewer limitations in this > space. Red Hat's layered projects ship a fair amount of bundled stuff. > This problem is entirely Fedora's. Fedora has far stricter rules than > RHEL in this regard. It helps

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 09/11/2015 07:16 PM, Haïkel wrote: 2015-09-11 21:09 GMT+02:00 Josh Stone: >On 09/11/2015 10:35 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >>Actually, the opposite is true. RHEL has fewer limitations in this >>space. Red Hat's layered projects ship a fair amount of bundled stuff.

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 19:19 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > If you take a closer look at the sample you provided you should have > noticed the submitted date of that review request is 2012-07-01 and > the > last comment in which he finally gave up and moved to do other > things > wason

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 09/11/2015 07:59 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 19:32 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 09/11/2015 07:25 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: In a world where bundling was allowed, the package would likely have been approved on initial review; the only significant issues

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 20:20 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > > Again, I don't actually think the answer here is "screw it, let's > > bundle everything" - but I do believe it's reasonable to say that > > the > > strict no-bundling policy is causing a lot of fairly pointless work > > I hardly

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

2015-09-11 21:09 GMT+02:00 Josh Stone : > On 09/11/2015 10:35 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> Actually, the opposite is true. RHEL has fewer limitations in this >> space. Red Hat's layered projects ship a fair amount of bundled stuff. >> This problem is entirely Fedora's.

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

2015-09-11 21:26 GMT+02:00 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson : > > > Right as well as most issues already have been found and fixed in Fedora > long before those components enter RHEL. > > JBG > Fair point, Fedora brings value to Red Hat and it is acknowledged. -- devel mailing list

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

2015-09-11 20:24 GMT+02:00 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson : > > > The inclusion of what now 15k components in the distribution is a testimony > of success of un-bundling against your testimony of ( few ) failures of > bundling. > > JBG > Say that *after* you properly reviewed the

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 09/11/2015 06:40 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 18:27 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: 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

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 09/11/2015 08:31 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: We certainly agree on that. > which has already been >answered by the board. >( people will first debate where to draw the line if that discussion >wont be killed in birth but in the end they end up with the same >question as has already been

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

Hi, On Friday, 11 September 2015 at 21:27, Haïkel wrote: [...] > I'll just point out that a non-negligible part of Fedora packages already > bundle libraries. Unless we want to mass-review and ban all those packages, > I consider that Stephen's proposal to be an *improvement* to the current >

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

2015-09-11 23:37 GMT+02:00 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski : > > It's not an improvement as such. We already require the Provides: > bundled(foo) thing, though we rely on the good will of maintainers > (both in Fedora and upstream) because we have practical means of >

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:30:37 -0700 Adam Williamson wrote: ...snip... > Does this make sense to folks? I'm willing to draft up the changes and > file an FPC ticket if so. I think any debate on what changes should be > made to the current policies would benefit from

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 19:02 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > > > > > "AM" == Adam Miller writes: > > AM> I also like the proposal for the bundled() macro > definition > AM> for tracking purposes. > > Just a note that it isn't a proposal; that is the current

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 09:30:37PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > 4. It seems fairly clear that BOMP was intended to mean, basically, > 'don't take a bunch of tarballs from different places and stuff them > all into one package'. It was *not* intended to cover 'library > bundling' in any sense.

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 11:17 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 09:30:37PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > 4. It seems fairly clear that BOMP was intended to mean, basically, > > 'don't take a bunch of tarballs from different places and stuff > > them > > all into one

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 09/11/2015 05:35 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: To me (speaking as a user of Fedora, maintainer of Fedora software and developer of both Fedora and upstream projects), the current situation is not ideal. In many cases, we're holding so rigidly to the "no bundling" policy that it is actively

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Stephen Gallagher 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

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 09:03 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Stephen Gallagher 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 >

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

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 >>om> wrote: > >>>I assume that subject

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 09:03 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Stephen Gallagher 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 >

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

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 wrote: I assume that subject line got your attention. Most definitely. :) So it's basically the same but without

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 11:02 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > > > > > "SG" == Stephen Gallagher writes: > SG> If they can't get that software from Fedora, they *will* get it > from > SG> another source (or use a different OS that doesn't get in their > SG> way). > >

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Adam Williamson < adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 09:03 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Stephen Gallagher > om> > > wrote: > > > > > I assume that subject line got your attention. > > >

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

> "SG" == Stephen Gallagher writes: SG> Right now, we have a policy that essentially forbids source code SG> from being bundled into a package. Technically we only care if that bundled code is actually compiled in. SG> In technical terms, this means essentially that

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Adam Williamson < adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 11:02 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > > > > > > "SG" == Stephen Gallagher writes: > > > > SG> Right now, we have a policy that essentially forbids source

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:02:27AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > I know that's something of a straw man, but my point is that we must > have some principles, and must work with upstreams to attempt to get > them to at least understand those principles. And we shouldn't give up > on that

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 11:02 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > > > > > "SG" == Stephen Gallagher writes: > > SG> Right now, we have a policy that essentially forbids source code > SG> from being bundled into a package. > > Technically we only care if that bundled code

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 11:02 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 12:58 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 11:02 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > > > > > > > > > "SG" == Stephen Gallagher writes: > > > SG> If they can't get that

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 12:39 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > "MM" == Matthew Miller 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

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

Am 10.09.2015 um 19:45 schrieb Stephen Gallagher: Right, so that's basically the point of this thread. It's time to decide if we as the Fedora Community still care enough to go through all that process. I didn't want to just have one group (FESCo) deciding something of that import without

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

> "MM" == Matthew Miller 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

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 12:39 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > > > > > "MM" == Matthew Miller 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>

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

Am 10.09.2015 um 20:37 schrieb Matthew Miller: On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 07:48:22PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: if i would want a operating system where i have no idea after security updates for a library if *all* applications are fixed i could just have gone to Apple OSX or stayed at Windows

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 12:58 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 11:02 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > > > > > > > "SG" == Stephen Gallagher writes: > > SG> If they can't get that software from Fedora, they *will* get it > > from > > SG> another

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 20:04 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > > > > > "AW" == Adam Williamson writes: > > AW> I think the fact that we can't even have a discussion of this > where > AW> we both understand what the current rules actually *are* clearly > AW> indicates

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 18:59 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > > > > > "AW" == Adam Williamson > > > > > > writes: > > AW> That just says 'multiple, separate upstream projects' (nothing > about > AW> being 'compiled in'), and implies that absolutely any such case

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

> "AW" == Adam Williamson writes: AW> That just says 'multiple, separate upstream projects' (nothing about AW> being 'compiled in'), and implies that absolutely any such case can AW> only be included with an explicit 'Bundling Exception'. OK, so "compiled in"

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 18:13 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 20:04 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > > > > > > "AW" == Adam Williamson writes: > > > > AW> I think the fact that we can't even have a discussion of this > > where > > AW> we both

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On September 10, 2015 6:25:48 PM PDT, Adam Williamson wrote: >On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 18:13 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: >> On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 20:04 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> > > > > > > "AW" == Adam Williamson writes: >> > >> >

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

> "AW" == Adam Williamson writes: AW> I think the fact that we can't even have a discussion of this where AW> we both understand what the current rules actually *are* clearly AW> indicates they have a clarity problem =) You may recall my earlier message in this thread

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

> "AM" == Adam Miller writes: AM> I also like the proposal for the bundled() macro definition AM> for tracking purposes. Just a note that it isn't a proposal; that is the current requirement for anything which bundles things. - J< -- devel mailing list

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 21:30 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 18:57 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > I think I'm gonna go and do one of my deep dives into the history of > > these rules tonight. I have a definite memory that at one point the > > accepted wisdom was that

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 18:57 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > I think I'm gonna go and do one of my deep dives into the history of > these rules tonight. I have a definite memory that at one point the > accepted wisdom was that only bundling of *already packaged* stuff > was forbidden, but now i

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 9:06 AM, 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 > om> wrote: >> > I assume that subject line got your attention. >> > >> Most

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 21:01 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 10.09.2015 um 20:37 schrieb Matthew Miller: > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 07:48:22PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > if i would want a operating system where i have no idea after > > > security updates for a library if *all*

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

> "SS" == Simo Sorce writes: SS> I have the impression (which may be totally wrong) that you are SS> taking the binary approach here: either we care maximally or we do SS> not care at all. I sure hope that's not the tack I'm taking. SS> It seem to me Stephen is making a

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 02:41:13PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > Anyway, what I don't get is why we're to the point of tossing out the > primary anti-bundling rule when FESCo has always had the power to > override any FPC decision. So FPC says "this isn't good packaging" and > FESCo can

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 02:59:41PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 12:39 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > > "MM" == Matthew Miller writes: > > > > MM> That said, I do recognize that "provides high-quality packages" has > > MM> also always been

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:02:31 -0700 Adam Williamson wrote: > Kernel modules are kind of a grey area because there are differing > opinions on their legality in re the GPL, but in general terms, it's > not correct to say we don't include non-free software for *legal* >

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > I assume that subject line got your attention. > > I know this is a long-standing debate and that this thread is likely > to turn into an incomprehensible flamewar filled with the same tired > arguments, but I'm

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 13:11 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:02:31 -0700 > Adam Williamson wrote: > > > Kernel modules are kind of a grey area because there are differing > > opinions on their legality in re the GPL, but in general terms, > > it's >

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:15:51 -0700 Adam Williamson wrote: > Huh, maybe it changed? Or there's a different license somewhere. I'm > almost sure it used to be, and this was intentional. Oh well, > substitute some other example, you get the point - Sun's Java or >

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 14:33 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:15:51 -0700 > Adam Williamson wrote: > > > Huh, maybe it changed? Or there's a different license somewhere. > > I'm > > almost sure it used to be, and this was intentional. Oh well, > >

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 03:50:27PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 02:41:13PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > Anyway, what I don't get is why we're to the point of tossing out the > > primary anti-bundling rule when FESCo has always had the power to > > override any

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

> "MM" == Matthew Miller writes: MM> I think it's because overriding a different group seems hostile, MM> even if it isn't meant that way. And FESCo doesn't want to feel like MM> they're second-guessing other groups all the time. Well, FPC even has a "bounce to

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:39:54PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > 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 >

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 07:48:22PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: > if i would want a operating system where i have no idea after > security updates for a library if *all* applications are fixed i > could just have gone to Apple OSX or stayed at Windows Unbundling is one approach to that problem. It