Il 30/09/2015 16:13, Orion Poplawski ha scritto:
On 09/30/2015 07:45 AM, Fabian Deutsch wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
<zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 08:35:41AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
* All packages not in the critical path whose upstreams allow them to
be build against system libraries '''must''' be built against system
libraries.
* All packages not in the critical path whose upstreams have no
mechanism to build against system libraries '''must''' be contacted
publicly about a path to supporting system libraries. If upstream
refuses, this must be recorded in a link included in the spec file.
* All packages not in non-critical path whose upstreams have no
mechanism to build against system libraries '''may''' opt to carry
bundled libraries, but if they do, they '''must''' include
{{{Provides:
bundled(<libname>) = <version>}}} in their RPM spec file.
Very reasonable imho.
Yes, I also see this as a good compromise.
We then have the ability to at least track bundling.
- fabian
I'd just like to point out that we have always had the requirement for
package that bundled libraries to carry the "Provides:
bundled(libname)" metadata. What's new here is not needing to go
through the FPC to get an exception. Which perhaps leads to people
not declaring their packages bundled libraries.
So, for me, is a bad news.
regards
gil
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
