Kevin Fenzi wrote on 27.02.2012 04:21: > > #topic #810 Clarify our position on forks .fesco 810 It's just a statement that is asked for in the ticket, but nevertheless: Shouldn't issues like this be discussed on this list first, so FESCo members can get a impression from the flamewar ^w discussion what the developer community thinks about the issue raised? CU knurd P.S.: For those that are to lazy to click two times (I assume a lot people are to lazy; I'm often to lazy myself...) to open the ticket in question, here is its text: > phenomenon > > We have a policy to forbid bundled libraries, but it's unclear what > this means for forks. background analysis > > With mate and cinnamon, forks seem to become more and more popular. > Some of these forks are about to enter Fedora and therefor we need to > clarify our position on forks and the duplication of system > libraries. > > Both muffin (fork of mutter) and cinnamon (fork of gnome-shell) are > forks for nearly a reason. The code changes are minimal, the biggest > change is the change of the headers to include the new FSFE address - > and it seems not even this trivial change was forwarded to the GNOME > developers. > > There are more problems: > > We are already working around problems in packaging that were fixed > in the orignal code upstream Given the rate of commits the forks will > have a hard time catching up with the originals. They already lag > behind massively. > > More background info in Bugzilla > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771252 in particular > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771252#c21 -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
