Rahul (sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) said: > Bill Nottingham wrote: > >Rahul (sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) said: > >>We *already* have many packages both in Fedora Core and Fedora Extras > >>that dont meet the guidelines. If we are going to clean it up, we can do > >>so in a better manner than just dumping out packages. > > > >What packages do we have that are *neither* OSI or FSF? > > > > None of the packages altered or dropped from Fedora Core so far meet > either the OSI or FSF guidelines. Openmotif and its dependencies in > Fedora Core dont. Few others like lha listed in the last audit update > mail probably isnt OSI compliant either. > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2006-August/msg00076.html > > We havent done the analysis in Fedora Extras yet including on all the > packages tagged "distributable". That link is FSF, though - AFAIK, everything in Extras should have gone under review to certify that it's at least OSI or FSF. Bill _______________________________________________ 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
