Dnia 24-05-2006, śro o godzinie 12:44 -0400, Bill Nottingham napisał(a): > Tomasz Kłoczko (kloczek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) said: > > And what is so problematic in make this as "this feacture will be > > disscontinued in FC6 ?" > > Again: on strict distribution packages set amout of work is compareable > > but just introduced way allow continue to grow entrophy .. probably this > > way will create in future more cases for fixing. > > Why not cut this now ? > > Because you're nuts. :) > > Seriously, you will then have reports from lots of users - > "this software doesn't build on Fedora! Fedora sucks, I'm using > Ubuntu." Upstream maintainers who don't care about these things > will just pile on, saying "Why use Fedora? This is just like > gcc-2.96 all over again." write patch for remove <foo>-config script -> introduce this in distro resources and in the same moment submit this to <foo> package maintainer with some technical argumentation "why it will good remove this" (one reason we know .. it is bad multilib behavior) for include this in main source tree. > If we want to have the foo-config scripts warn, sure. Possibly > even patch our own Core & Extras packages. But randomly breaking > third-party software so it won't build isn't really practical. I'm start from fribidi. OK. Lets look on some facts. Where it library is used ? abiword ? (in all other cases applications are using fibidi embeded in pango) huh .. where in this case is *real* problem ? kloczek -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
