On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 03:32:03PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > 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. Well, let's be fair here, if it was indeed what you are describing, would it be announced on this list 1.5 years in advance ? Pierre _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
