On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 23:04 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:32:23PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > > The only criteria is this: > > > > 1) The repository can not be involved in a claim of infringement > > (copyright, patent, trademark, license), nor can I or Red Hat be aware > > of any material which leads us to believe that infringement is likely. > > 2) The repository must not duplicate packages contained within the > > Fedora package repositories. > > The second one isn't a legal issue, is it? And some in the Fedora > community do appreciate that some packages are offered in an extended > way adding build time dependencies that are not in Fedora itself for > various reasons (probably for similar reasons the third party repo > exist at the first place). > > Wrt ATrpms while the tendency has been to remove as much as possible > overlap I think we are not 100% there to having a solely add-on repo. > > What I want to say is that don't make policies that will only allow > the One and Only Repo to pass. Doing this does place a significant burden on Fedora though, esp. on upgrades (and esp. on distro. upgrades). It would be _much_ nicer if the override packages would live in a separate repo. from the purely add-on packages, this also significantly helps out the users who know they can enable repo XYZ because they won't be getting anything they didn't ask for explicitly. -- James Antill <james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
