Sven Lankes wrote:
> I'm not worried too much about a library being system or not. What I'm
> worried about is twofold:
>
> 1. Established packagers of high-profile packages get to do what they
> want with fedora packages while small-scale packagers of low-profile
> packages get told to bugger off if they cannot make their packages
> use system libs (zsync anyone?).
+1
I really don't see why we keep exempting Firefox from our rules.
> Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I can see none of the chosen ff
> comitters has actually asked fesco to grant an exception for libvpx,
> right? Now that the topic has come up there is talk in the ticket
> that the exception should be granted but that cannot feel right to
> anyone, can it?
And indeed, the fact that this is only being brought to the responsible
committee (FESCo) after the fact is also unacceptable.
> 2. The combination of the Mozilla Trademark issue combined with the
> strict handling of patches by (corporate|distro)-maintainers (I don't
> think that this is a RH/Fedora issue - same with Canonical/Ubuntu)
> makes me feel uneasy about ff being called Free sofware.
Indeed, Firefox is effectively non-Free for Fedora, since we're being kept
hostage of their patch approval processes, and since our maintainer has a
conflict of interest and values Mozilla's policies above Fedora's.
> (And yes - I am aware that the other relevant floss-browser is much
> worse than mozilla wrt. bundling libs and using forked libs).
(Hey, don't insinuate that Konqueror is irrelevant!)
Chromium is not in Fedora for exactly that reason. Why does Firefox get a
free pass?
> Also the bug is not about _using_ the system lib it's just about
> allowing the user to build against it.
Indeed. And this is a core part of freedom.
Plus, the end user isn't going to build Firefox himself. It's going to be
built by a packager who knows what he's doing when building against the
system library, and the distribution also controls that library. So I really
don't see why Mozilla refuses to allow it.
>> From Mozilla's perspective, they could:
>> 1. Do what they are doing now, temporarily not allow a few new
>> system libs, waiting until they get banged into shape and *then*
>> enable system libs (down the road).
>> 2. Bang on the code in private and wait until it meets every Fedora
>> packaging guideline, etc, until committing to the upstream
>> repository, so we all get to wait for all of the cool shit that's
>> happening.
>
> 3. Add the patch to their system that would allow people to build
> against a system lib.
+1
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
