On 16. 10. 2013 at 10:46:01, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Dne 16.10.2013 10:04, Jan Zelený napsal(a): > > 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. > > Sorry, this has nothing to do with FPC yet. RPM/YUM/DNF should first > provide reasonable support. For example this issue [1] could take us > closer as a first approximation. Again? Really? As I wrote before, I'm not going to go for that bait yet again. Also this sub-thread was about policies, not about the technical side per se. BTW great demonstration about the upstream wild west I was referring to in the previous email, thank you for that example. Jan -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
