2014-04-21 19:07 GMT+02:00 Haïkel Guémar <hguemar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Le 21/04/2014 18:37, Stephen Gallagher a écrit :They actually are second-class citizens, we can't fix proprietary apps as we actually do with FOSS applications.
I spoke too strongly there, I think. We do however give a *very*
strong impression that using non-FOSS solutions for anything at all is
unwelcome at best. Consider the recent discussions around GNOME
Software where we have
1) Forbidden it from automatically looking up software from non-Fedora
repositories, even FOSS ones
2) Asserted that it must consider web apps (either FOSS or not) to be
second-class citizens (and call it out as such)
That's not actually exclusive to proprietary applications; there seem to be quite a few Fedora packages where the maintainer can, or does, only forward bug reports upstream without trying to fix the code. In theory there's a difference, in practice there isn't.
But if we were to consider them first-class citizens, without the editors cooperation, we would be bind to their willing which is against our mission statement.
Unlike CentOS, we can't provide a stable base suitable to proprietary SW editors, all we can do is best effort.
This is not true: the OS, not the applications, has the authority to define what is a stable base for applications to rely on, and the OS even has technical capability (via SELinux permissions or (nm -D) checks within installers) to enforce that they don't rely on anything else. Yes, we would have to commit to a set of useful stable ABIs; but that's not the same as freezing every interface in the system. And useful stable ABIs would be equally beneficial for the open-source projects, ensuring that the two-sided market of users/programmers is not losing programs just because somebody decided an API needs to be "improved".
Mirek
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
