Tomasz Kłoczko (kloczek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) said: > > 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. That doesn't help those packages' users, which is the whole point. > > 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 ? All other cases? Do you know the extent of all fribidi using software that exists (not just Core/Extras)? Bill -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
