Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) wrote:
As I mention above, what about your first link - main apache rpm
package fully ignore this guidelines!
>
These are more best practises and aren't part oaf the packaging
guidelines except as a reference but maintainers have to ultimately
make their own decisions. If you find major deviations from upstream,
it is useful to talk to the maintainers and understand why.
Off course, you talk about "maintainers have to ultimately make their
own decisions." but forbidden this right for the Fedora users who want
use mpm-itk for example??
I haven't really forbidden anything. Not my call anyway. I am just
explaining to you why things are the way, they are. Maintainers
decisions are going to be constrained by existing guidelines for Fedora
including licensing etc. This isn't free for all space.
In other words, if I (or any other) make "Apache fork", copy it source,
patch with this patch and pack in separate source tarball on separate
URL (on Sourceforge or any else) you are accept such package into Fedora???
Again not my call but forks of projects are generally allowed
independently c.f emacs vs xemacs.
Rahul
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
