On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 00:36 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> > Â* Why haven't those that want iceweasel and icedove in Fedora not >> > simply invested some time and got them integrated into the repository?(Â) >> >> Because having both Iceweasel and Firefox in the repository, in addition to >> being stupid by itself, would also mean shipping 2 different versions of >> xulrunner (because there's where most of the offending patches live). >> >> And besides, it's not that we want Iceweasel, it's that we DO NOT WANT >> Firefox since it does not follow Fedora policies. Having both would not >> actually solve any problem. > > Proving that we can package Iceweasel and Icedove into Fedora and wind > up with workable software is a big step on that road, though. I think > making Iceweasel and Icedove packages and then floating the proposal > "switch from these guideline-infringing Firefox and Thunderbird packages > to these non-guideline-infringing Iceweasel and Icedove packages that > already exist and are tested" would get much more momentum than just > complaining that the Firefox and Thunderbird packages are infringing. Iceweasel as it currently exists in debian currently bundles exactly the same media libraries. (http://packages.debian.org/source/experimental/iceweasel â notice the lack of dependency on libvorbis,libtheora,libvpx,libogg,etc) It's facts like these that put the lie to the ridiculous claim that the media library bundling has much of anything to do with trademarks. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
