On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Debarshi Ray <rishi.is@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > <sarcasm> > So what is the next step? Offering another kernel? Or allowing us to choose > a different package manager or packing format? Oh, wait, using multiple > different depsolvers has already been frowned upon. <deadpan> On an F18 system yum info smart yum info dpkg </deadpan> Please don't confuse the discussion concerning "default" choices with a discussion as to what is allowable to include for end-users to choose from. Please don't confuse the discussion concerning what we mandate with regard to our internal project workflow concerning the tools we require contributors to use with discussion concerning what we allow to exist for end-users to choose from. Because we do include alternative depsolvers for rpm packages. And we do include alternative package management tools for end-user use. And as much as I really personally have no intention of using AOO, I can't think of a sound policy reason or precedent to exclude its inclusion. The historical symlinks muddy the water to some degree, as does the unfortunate history with the project forking. But there's nothing fundamental here that screams policy red flag. -jef -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
