On Sunday, October 31, 2010 04:41:14 pm Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 12:01:25AM +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> As per the thread on advisory-board;
>
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/
> advisory-board/2010-October/009577.html
>
> I urge you to consider to allow exceptions like these for the greater
> benefit of your users -and thus upstream, through Fedora.
The questions are how? and why?
Possible how: Allow apps to bundle libraries period.
Possible why: Because users are going to run the apps anyway and if they
come from Fedora, at least we can be providing updates to the broken
versions as the fixes become available instead of relying on the user to
seek them out.
Possible how: Apps are allowed to bundle libraries as long as the
maintainer commits to keeping the app ported to the newest version of the
bundled library within Fedora at all times.
Possible why: Security fixes and bugfixes to the library are going to be
pushed to the latest versions of packages in Fedora. We need to make sure
that the libraries are kept in sync so that we can consume those fixes
quickly if a problem arises. We need to make sure that there is someone
able to make fixes (the maintainer) in case a problem arises.
This means rebasing the bundled library and applying upstream's changes to
such bundled -but latest- version, right?
This would be perfectly reasonable, including the former option, possibly
including as much FES effort as possible. However, I suppose with the latter
option, in the case of Passenger, I'm not sure whether they would see it as a
breach of the trademark license. I suppose we could look at whether something
similar has ever occurred with Mozilla?
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip