Owen Taylor wrote: > As for standard application RPMs, it's really going to be something > we figure out over time. My vision is something like: > > F27: packagers are *able* to create Flatpaks of their application. > They must also maintain standard RPMs. > > F28: packagers (of graphical applications) are *encouraged* to create > Flatpaks of their applications along side standard RPM packaging. > They *may* drop the standard RPM packaging if there is good > reason to. > > F29: packagers (of graphical applications) must create Flatpaks of > their applications if possible. They *may* keep standard RPM > packaging. This sounds a lot like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_tactics to me, a common strategy used by construction companies to subvert environmental rules, obviously frowned upon. You are trying to submit small innocous-sounding changes in an attempt to sneak in your plan to completely subvert Fedora while minimizing opposition. I really hope that FESCo will evaluate the above complete plan when considering your change proposal, not just the thin salami slice that you submitted. Kevin Kofler _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
