Web lists-archives.com

Re: Q: Debian position on bundled libraries




On 23/08/18 12:01, Paul Wise wrote:

Hi, thanks for replies!

> On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 3:51 PM, Alec Leamas wrote:
> 
>> It's not that I don't understand your reasoning. Still, if this is the
>> conclusion, it's kind of sad because it's means that a price-awarded [1]
>> application won't be packaged in Debian. Upstream is very clear on this.
> 
> Please note that I only mentioned my personal opinion, in practice
> Debian's opinion is that bundling is fine, even of unmodified stuff
> that is already packaged and especially for modified or unpackaged
> things. There are tons of code/data copies in the archive, many of
> which are registered with the security team (see the wiki page linked
> earlier) and many which are not.

OK, if all agrees on this I would be happy... Note that the approach in
[2] is that we are trying to do our homework and unbundle things we
"can", so to speak.

>> the embedded communities would really need a pure Debian package.

> Hmm, why would Flatpak not work for them?

Flatpak isn't that space effective, the downloads are large. Multiple
downloads are de-duplicated, but it's still a lot of bytes. OTOH, it
could be argued that any system using OpenCPN needs a lot of storage for
charts. But still...

>> Fedora today basically allows bundling.
> 
> I thought they actually had a similar policy to Debian; if possible,
> try not to bundle but if you cannot avoid it, fine. We only use
> "should" after all.

Perhaps not that different from what you describe here [1]

Cheers!
--alec

[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Bundling_and_Duplication_of_system_libraries
[2] https://github.com/OpenCPN/OpenCPN/issues/1124