> China is the elephant in the > room, here. I agree with Christoph - this policy is essentially about > China, and that needs to be openly and clearly discussed. Sure. Honestly, I think the approved policy sort of sucks - it should either be a full 'no flags except for specifc exceptions'[1], or 'hey, ship all the flags you like'. In between adds a lot of technical apparatus that doesn't bring in much gain. As I said, it's a trade-off between: Benefits: - allows roughly 1/6 of the world's population to use Fedora freely Demerits: - requires ongoing maintenance work on some packages - may require removing packages that can't comply without being broken I feel the benefits in this case outweigh the demerits, and the amount of work required to be greatly exaggerated. Furthermore, making Fedora available for all to use freely is a fundamental goal of the project; ensuring the presence of, say, gcompris in a form that exactly matches upstream is much lower down the totem pole.[2] Now, if we can discuss the benefits and demerits without resorting to reducuing it to 'aah! slippery slope' or 'I'm offended by yellow, take that out too!', it would help, as those are sort of missing the point. Bill [1] I can see the argument for freeciv. I can't see the argument for someone using flags to pick languages, input methods, etc. [2] In the same way that each packager's own preferred workflow does not override the needs of the project as a whole, neither does the upstream composition or use of any particlar package override the needs of the project as a whole. Sure, we may bend a little bit for the kernel... -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
