On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 11:43:00 -0500 (CDT), Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Gregory Leblanc wrote: > > Note that this is intended for Extras, *not* Core. By "Fedora", if you > meant "Fedora Core", then I'd agree with you 100%. I think you make too fine a distinction between Core and Extras, especially in this case, where the licensing issue directly impacts the ability of a package maintainer to do the right thing when it comes to dealing patching the package. It's just as important for maintainers of Fedora Extras packages as it is for Core packages to be able to roll in patches when its in the best interest of the userbase. I think the best way to look at Fedora Extras as an extention of Core not as something distinctly different moving forward. Extras is not and will not be a dumping ground for unmaintainable packages. Not being able to provide critical patches... makes pine unmaintainable at the packaging level. Think of Fedora Core+Extras as the full distribution, of potentially encompassing as much non-conflicting functionality and projects as legally possible. Looking at it that way, Core and Extras are meant to share the same packaging quality and package stewardship practices, meeting much of the same criteria as to what is expected of a packager. -jef"patch patch patch all day long, patch patch patch while i sing this song"spaleta
