On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 14:37 -0400, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote: > And you know what? I believe that's okay. I believe that's why we built > the Fedora packaging universe the way we built it. I believe that Fedora > is relatively holy ground -- but I also believe that we should be > encouraging the heretics. Because that allows Fedorans to focus on things > like Gnash and Ogg, and actual desktop usability issues that have nothing > to do with codecs, and we can work on these issues *without compromise* -- > but we can encourage some other, hopefully friendly, third parties to do > all the dirty stuff that we won't do with Fedora. Maybe that third party > is rpmfusion. Maybe it's Red Hat working with Fluendo on a desktop > product. But if it's not going to be Fedora, then let's say it's not > going to be Fedora, make CodecBuddy a purely educational tool, and move > on. Umm, here might be the dumb idea of the day, why don't we speak to thomas about creating a respin with the codecs under the auspices of fluendo and lets see how popular that becomes. Let fluendo take control of it, there is really minimal work they need to do. Let fluendo Release it as a one-off special edition or whatever. Further, we just watch and see what the feedback on that is and maybe from there we can move in the right direction. Maybe we are wrong and people really don't care about that shit. Everyone I know who does just gets its from rpm.someserverinfrance.org and most people are accustomed to that by now, so maybe we are arguing about something which is not even an issue? We won't ever know unless we try and water those seeds and judge by useful, meaningful community feedback. Jack _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
