On 10/06/2010 12:41 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 12:29:59 -0400, > Nathaniel McCallum <nathaniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> The only possible room for debate that I see is that there is, in >> Firefox, a potential conflict between our "ship upstream" and "don't >> bundle libs" values. We have FESco to sort that out. > > Those are the policies I was refering to. > >> In short: No big deal. Close the thread. Move on. ;) > > Well the project doesn't seem to be coming to consensus on this issue. > Some of us feel that we should provide an Iceweasel or drop Firefox, > similar to other things the project has decided to not package. Others think > that Firefox is so important to the project, that we must make an exception > for it. (And to some extent, that we should stay close to upstream.) Some have > also hoped that Mozilla would change with regard to bundled libraries in the > near future, but that seems pretty unlikely. > > I don't think this is just a FESCO issue. I really think this is a board > issue as it has to do with the relative importance of our bundled libraries > policy, our stay close to upstream policies, the impact on our user base > of replaceing Firefox with an unbranded version or just dropping it and > the morale of various developers if we give or don't give Firefox an > exemption to the no bundled libraries policies. > > For example it may be that we can't do an Iceweasel, because the current > packagers of Firefox may refuse to do that as an alterative to packaging > Firefox and we may not find new volunteers to do the packaging work. Yup. I don't have a dog in this fight, so to speak. Just as long as we agree that Mozilla's policy and Fedora's policy are roughly the same and that this policy is sensible. Whether Mozilla's refusal to accept patches is sensible is another matter... Nathaniel -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
