Q: Has the library behaviour been modified? If so, how has it been
modified? If the library has been modified in ways that change the API or
behaviour then there may be a case for copying. Note that fixing bugs is
not grounds to copy. If the library has not been modified (ie: it can be
used verbatim in the distro) there's little chance of an exception.
A: Yes. API has been changed. See
Attempt has been made to push this changes to upstream jthread, but to no
avail. And, anyway, minetest recently dropped support for building with
system jthread altogether (planning to fork or replace it)
Q: Could we make the forked version the canonical version within Fedora?
For instance, if upstream for the library is dead, is the package we're
working on that bundles willing to make their fork a library that others
can link against?
A: No, it doesn't make sense, because changes are only usefull for minetest
Q: Are the changes useful to consumers other than the bundling application?
If so why aren't we proposing that the library be released as a fork of the
A: No, see above.
Q: Is upstream keeping the base library updated or are they continuously
one or more versions behind the latest upstream release?
A: Upstream using old version of library modifying it to their needs (and
intend on doing so)
Q: What is the attitude of upstream towards bundling?
A: they insist on keeping bundled version
Q: Is there a plan for unbundling the library at a later time?
A: AFAIK, yes, by replacing it with different implementation. But no
FPC voted on granting an exception today, there were four +1 votes (five are needed).
Toshio indicated that he would add his +1 when a timeline was given for unbundling this fork of jthread.
Additionally, other FPC members should feel free to vote in this ticket.
We had a late +1, the exception is approved at +1:5, 0:0, -1:0. It would still be very helpful to get a timeline from upstream for unbundling/replacement, so please still try to get that.
to comment on this ticket.