Kevin Kofler wrote:
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
2. all your arguments apply in one form or another to a large part of
what you consider "legitimate software", and you've been told so many
times
The difference is that software *needs* to be packaged for it to install
cleanly. A font also needs it to some extent, which is why we're packaging
them (and fonts are 1. small to medium-sized, so they don't waste resources
that much, 2. often used by software, in fact several of the fonts now
getting packaged are getting packaged because they used to be shipped as
part of some software and 3. usable with the software in Fedora unlike OVM
which this thread was originally about). (So don't worry, I'm not
suggesting to stop packaging fonts, and in fact I don't think anybody was
seriously suggesting that.)
Nope. As you say, there is an advantage to packaging fonts.
3. core+extras, autopackage, direct CPAN use are all (mild) forms of
what you advocate and the project already decided not to go those ways
FWIW, I'm not a fan of Matthew's suggestion of a "content repo" either. In
fact I think it wouldn't scale any more than packaging everything in Fedora
would. We have such a repo already, it's called the World Wide Web. :-)
Trying to put it all on a single server or even server farm is madness.
Well, we already have some "content repos"... *-look.org, wikimedia
commons, openfonts.org :-).
I'm not convinced that larger, unified repos would be bad (note that I
mean "repo" in the general sense just to mean a big library) but that
isn't necessarily a goal, and certainly having Fedora provide the
infrastructure is not a goal. I'd be more interested in integrating with
existing repos, which I think is what you're saying also.
--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
ELANG: input is in wrong language (please use English on English lists)
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
