On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 03:04 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 03/10/2010 03:05 AM, Brian C. Huffman wrote: > > All, > > > > I'm curious why Fedora chose to include Zarafa as opposed to other > > (mostly) opensource groupware solutions? > > > > Ones that come to mind: Scalix, Open-Exchange, Zimbra. > > Some contributors interested in Zarafa are now maintaining it in the > Fedora repository. If anyone is interested in packaging and maintaining > any of the alternatives you mention, Fedora will gladly include them as > long as they are free and open source software. Also worth noting Zarafa was added following a very long process on the infrastructure list which was based around trying to find a server that could be used to provide a Fedora project calendaring system, which met certain requirements. We went through a _lot_ of options and wound up with Zarafa (and possibly eGroupware) as the best candidates. Check the infrastructure list archive for more details. That doesn't negate anything Rahul said, it's still perfectly possible to add other systems if someone wants them; just explaining the process which led to Zarafa being added. Do you know of something particularly problematic about Zarafa? If so, infrastructure would probably like to know. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
