Jun 8, 2022 8:51:45 AM Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > The differences outlined there result in different constraints. I disagree that flathub flatpaks breaking our policies is incidental. The way it solves the "problem with Linux app distribution" is (in part) by allowing developers to package and distribute their own applications and thus bypass Linux distributions, their policies, and review processes. I am not a lawyer, but even if it was "incidental," that seems like a pretty flimsy argument to me. I, for one, am dissatisfied with the answer, and I'm not even part of the rpmfusion project. If the rpmfusion developers feel the need to resort to retaliatory measures (which I don't support, BTW) to have their voices heard, that demonstrates a serious problem that needs to be addressed by fully responding to their concerns. I apologize if I was a little harsh, but I'm frustrated by how this has played out. -- Thanks, Maxwell G (@gotmax23) Pronouns: He/Him/His
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
