On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 02:38:44PM +0000, Richard Hughes wrote: > okay for FESCo? Of course, that would mean convincing all the non-free > upstreams to add an extra file, as well as the traditional > semi-static-binary-plus-repo.rpm file. Well, hopefully any work in that direction is not solely targeted at making life better for proprietary vendors but also be useful to anyone else trying to ship software for Fedora. > Which is the point we're at now. What FESCo has effectively said is > "what we have now is fine", and we have a declining userbase that says > otherwise. Do we have any data that shows that the declining number of users has anything to do with less-then-perfect accessibility of proprietary software? -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
