Le mercredi 04 février 2009 à 17:28 -0600, Matthew Woehlke a écrit : > Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Sure, take the time to make the experiment, remove fonts, remove music, > > remove themes, remove images, and see how much stuff is still working or > > useful in your nice "software only" repository. > > First off, I'm not talking about "core material", I'm talking about > things that merely enhance, much of which is currently /not/ in Fedora > repos. Who are you to judge what the "merely" point is? Who are you to judge that because something does not fall 100% in your etricated "software" category it's less useful for Fedora than a random sf.net bit of software two people in the world use (the author and the packager)? We've explicitely refused to start assessing the degree of usefulness of our packages (except there must be some), you're arguing dual standards. > Second, we were talking about adding content that isn't used. > > Third, what's to say we can't write tools to have dependencies on other > types of repositories? The main point is that it doesn't make sense to > use the exact same repo and infrastructure for disparate content types. > I'd rather not see Fedora becoming a multimedia repository, Everyone understood this. > not only > because I don't think it's an appropriate goal, but because if we're > doing this in Fedora and not in a more general sense, we're keeping > non-Fedora users out. I think we have enough Fedora problems without spending a lot of time on non*-Fedora-users. > "I find that kde-look.org enhances kdebase. We should package > kde-look.org (at least, all appropriately licensed content) and add it > to Fedora's repos." > > Do you seriously agree with the above? If there are people willing to maintain the resulting packages, yes. > > What they usually don't is that adding more "non-software" elements (in > > addition to those we already have to because a lot of things would > > bloody not work without them), would have additionnal synergistic > > effects for everyone involved. > > Again, I'm not opposed to making Free content more accessible from > Fedora. I'm opposed to doing it via inappropriate infrastructure, and > I'm opposed to doing it in a Fedora-centric manner. Let's also remove perl packages since you can use them directly via "more appropriate" CPAN (and a lot of people do it), let's remove java packages (can be used by maven), let's remove translations (take precious liveced and mirror space, noarch, not-code, people just have to learn to download them via separate plugin systems), and most of all let's make very sure the people who work on all this for us understand 100% they're not the same class of contributors of glibc maintainers and have to fend by themselves. This is something which is going to greatly enhance Fedora, yay! > > PS Fonts can be compiled and include an instruction langage. Which is > > complex enough some of its bits got patented. Looks like software to me. > > Are they architecture specific? No. Let's remove all scripts and other interpreted files. > Does "A great looking gothic font" give > you any useful information if this is that perfect font you need for > your presentation/art project? It gives enough information for Japanese users that know what a gothic style is. -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
