On 05/19/2009 02:51 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On 05/19/2009 05:44 PM, Denis Leroy wrote:
That's a pretty vague sentence. Do we have something more specific to
work with, to justify this whole fiasco ? Have people complained ? Were
threats made ? Bugzilla tickets filed ? Did the PRC threaten to add
fedoraproject.org to the big firewall if we don't stop shipping FreeCIV
immediately (a CeasePackage-and-desist letter :-) ) ?
People complained. I was asked to write a policy draft to handle flags.
Well, to be specific, I was asked to document the unwritten "no flags"
policy that we'd had from the Red Hat Linux days, but after giving it
thought and consulting with Red Hat Legal, I came up with the current
policy which:
* permits flags in optional subpackages
* permits flags when their use is not technically or substantively
essential to the package
s/not//
?
* gives an explicit exception to flags when they are generic (fictional
countries count as generic)
Note that this one is tricky. A generic flag is fine. But if a real
group (not necessarily a country) associates themselves with the flag,
it would become banned under the current policy.
* has an exception clause where a packager can plead their case to FESCo
This is substantially divergent from "No Flags".
<nod>
-Toshio
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
