Skip to content

Conversation

@thesamesam
Copy link
Member

@thesamesam thesamesam commented Sep 20, 2025

I've tried to faithfully port the wiki page [0] to the devmanual in this commit, and intend to change the contents as required in followups, to allow easier comparison and to retain provenance.

[0] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Why_not_bundle_dependencies

Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/300625


Note: I'm looking for review of the formatting and porting to the devmanual for now, not whether we should add/adjust content etc (which I will do once the foundation is OK).

@thesamesam
Copy link
Member Author

How's it looking now? OK to proceed to content review? And do we want to commit this as-is, or review the content here? Either is fine with me. I guess reviewing the content here is easier because you can comment on the full diff more easily.

What I don't want to do, however, is squash any content fixes into the first commit.

@thesamesam thesamesam marked this pull request as ready for review September 20, 2025 21:40
@ulm
Copy link
Member

ulm commented Sep 20, 2025

I'd say we should continue with content review here.

@thesamesam
Copy link
Member Author

Let me know when it looks OK and I'll move onto content (I don't want to try fix existing style issues in the first commit once I started that, as cherry-picking that will be hell).

@thesamesam thesamesam requested a review from ulm September 21, 2025 12:01
Copy link
Member

@ulm ulm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Formatting looks good.

I have some tiny comments, admittedly most are into spelling territory (but you might want to fix them now, so they won't interfere with content review later).

@thesamesam
Copy link
Member Author

Thank you! The quick reviews are appreciated, it helps a lot with momentum and motivation.

@thesamesam thesamesam requested a review from ulm September 21, 2025 18:28
Copy link
Member

@ulm ulm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Formatting LGTM.

@thesamesam thesamesam marked this pull request as draft September 21, 2025 21:21
Copy link
Contributor

@laumann laumann left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is good reading 👍

idk if you want examples of packages where upstream does vendor dependencies, but has a mechanism not to use them. media-libs/openjpeg vendors some libraries that Gentoo's packaging carefully removes. At least it's optional to use the vendored versions.

are aware that the package is statically linked)
</li>
<li>
If <e>foo</e> bundled local copy of <e>libbar</e>, then they would have to wait
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If foo is a bundled […]

?

Copy link
Member Author

@thesamesam thesamesam Dec 20, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No, if foo bundled a..

Changed to that now.

I've tried to faithfully port the wiki page [0] to the devmanual in
this commit, and intend to change the contents as required in followups,
to allow easier comparison and to retain provenance.

[0] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Why_not_bundle_dependencies

Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/300625
Signed-off-by: Sam James <[email protected]>
@orlitzky
Copy link
Contributor

I'm not sure if it fits in the narrative anywhere, but one argument I hear often is "so what, we'll just upgrade the bundled version when it becomes vulnerable." This fails in practice for two reasons:

  1. Except for the rare well-written report where the authors trace the origin of a bug, no one is looking for vulnerabilities in older versions.
  2. MITRE specifically does not issue CVEs for bundled dependencies.

So the lack of a "vulnerability" in a bundled dependency is truly indicative of nothing.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants