Rahul Sundaram wrote:
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.
I do not see any legal issues here. And also not found any guidelines
about this situation when two (several) packages will include one
source. This is a reason why I ask it question here.
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.
Ok, ok. But why this is likely when initial case with patch without
intermediate steps like pseudo-forks?
Pseudo, because I it will not be intended for any innovations except one
patch and presupposes sync witch upstream developing of the both projects?
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
