On 2 January 2015 at 06:48, Richard Hughes <hughsient@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
anaconda
On 2 January 2015 at 11:45, Hedayat Vatankhah <hedayat.fwd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Yes, I know. And I say that it might be OK for a "GNOME Application", but
> doesn't seem to be OK for Fedora application.
There's no such thing as a "Fedora application".
Where is it said there is no such thing as a Fedora application? Unless there is a FESCO or Fedora Board saying there are no Fedora applications, you are on very shaky ground with that god-like pronouncement.
Depending on the definitions of Fedora, application and what is what upstream.. there are a ton of packages which could be considered Fedora applications.anaconda
firewalld
a ton of web-apps that Fedora infrastructure rights for the build systems and such.
system-config-...
[And they aren't Red Hat items as Fedora is the place where they are considered the upstream for.]
Other definitions of an application, packaging and bundling would have that anything that is signed with Fedora keys is considered a Fedora application. [Most business and legal definitions when looking for liability, support, or other matters which still exist even with the disclaimer that there is no support or liability... consider everything signed by the Fedora keys to be Fedora applications.]
So until you both agree to the same set of definitions, you are both wrong and both right. I think you all need to step back from the email and come back later and work on trying to agree on something.
Stephen J Smoogen.
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
