On 12 September 2015 at 04:10, Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I agree that the discussion here needs to be more broad-based; see the > other thread fork. I was just providing support for Stephen's > contention that this is not some airy-fairy theoretical problem, there > are multiple examples of real things that people *wanted* to have > packaged that are not packaged because the unbundling process was too > onerous. This is the idea behind COPR and Fedora Playground though - ensuring that packages that are *legally* acceptable for redistribution are easy to publish and consume for Fedora and EPEL users, while still being clearly distinct from the ones that have passed full review against the packaging guidelines. What we haven't managed to do yet is update the package review process to better account for the distinction, such as by adopting a "COPR first" model, where folks put a package up in COPR with bundled components, and then either keep it there indefinitely, or collaborate with others on the unbundling effort. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@xxxxxxxxx | Brisbane, Australia -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
