On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 04:55:46PM +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote: > I give +1 to this. On the other hand Fedora also is (was?) a project > where individual package maintainers had the biggest influence on what > packages ship if they do not cross some fundamental legal limits. This > changed in many ways recently and the restrictions and requirements are > more and more technical, not just legal, and even controversial. > We have a long history of technical requirements actually. In fedora.us we even had re-reviews when packages were updated. > The > problem here really is that some "not so important?" projects are forced > to accept all the restrictions and requirements and other "more > important?" projects get a free pass from them. This is unfortunate and > it does not improve the spirit of the package maintainers. > Well, there's also the security, bugfix, and encouraging forking issues that are listed here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries But I agree that having a strict requirement because it's felt that the issues that are raised by allowing the requirement to be violated are very problematic for us as a distro but then letting certain things bundle because they're more important than other packages is morale sapping. Fesco is voting in the trac ticket on whether to allow libvpx to be bundled and also whether to allow bundling of any library that mozilla decides to in the future; I think if that passes the FPC will have to look at making it easier for other packages to do the same. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpi6SEcUlflY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
