On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 13:12 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Josh Boyer (jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) said: > > On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 12:53 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > On Tuesday 29 August 2006 12:41, Rahul wrote: > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2006-August/msg00081.htm > > > >l > > > > > > This mail has absolutely no info regarding why a package would be acceptable > > > for Extras when it isn't acceptable for Core. This disturbs me greatly. If > > > the license isn't good enough for core, it shouldn't be in Extras either. > > > > +1 > > > > Extras is not a dumping ground for packages that aren't suitable for > > Core. If someone wants to push a package from Core -> Extras, it still > > goes through a review. Openmotif will fail that review immediately, > > given that it's license is not OSI compatible. > > Right. However, we should *announce* that it's going away for FC-6, then > fix the dependent apps as best as possible, then remove it; not remove > first. Do we have time on the FC-6 schedule for this? ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Technical Team Lead || GPG ID: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my! _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
