On 15. 10. 2013 at 09:40:41, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 01:15:26PM +0200, Jan Zelený wrote: > > Not to be only negative here, take a look at the COPR initiative, I expect > > it will solve the problem you are talking about by offering external > > repositories that will be easily reachable from Fedora but won't be a part > > of the Fedora itself. The content of these repositories will be governed > > by the same law as Fedora packages are (SW patents, ...) but technical > > policies should be a lot less strict. > > Would that address your concerns? > > I won't speak for Michael, but I think the answer is no. COPRs fills a need, > but it's _too_ wild west (no package signatures, for example). We need to > support multiple language runtimes and native upstream packaging *in* > Fedora. Ok then, talk to FPC about this. Personally I'd be against creating the wild west from Fedora itself and I'd rather like to have have it in COPRs. Fedora should keep its high standard of Software packaging (which usually doesn't apply for upstream packages). Thanks Jan -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
