Josh Boyer wrote: > On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 17:05 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: >> For Fedora Base (aka Core + Extras) I 100% agree but whats wrong with an >> additional repo which isn't enabled by default which lies the boundary >> at "no use restrictions accept for non commercial use only"? >> >> Again let me reverse the question from why a non commercial repo, to why >> not? > > You are assuming (incorrectly) that Fedora Base is Core + Extras. > That's not the case. Fedora is anything that is under the Fedora > Project umbrella. Period. That's why it's not a trivial task to > announce an official Fedora project. > This need not be an official Fedora project, all we are asking is to be able to use Fedora Extra's infrastructure, also this need not use Fedora in the name of the repo. > Having a repository that allows packages under a non-commercial within > Fedora goes against the goal that Arjan already explained. Users should > be able to take all of the Fedora repositories, make physical media out > of it, and sell it. > > It also opens up some doors I personally would rather avoid. For > example, we can't have Extras packages depending on non-commercial > packages. And that's something reviewers and maintainers would have to > watch for adding extra burden on the reviewing process. We have a slow > enough review process as it is... > Sorry I don't buy this argument, many many reviewers also have other 3th party repositories enabled and -devel packages from them installed. The only thing which will truely show this if a packager makes this rather naive mistake is a mock build and if the default mock configs don't include that repo then for the mock build nothing will change. Regards, Hans -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
