On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 21:09 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > seth vidal schrieb: > > On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 18:30 +0000, Kevin Kofler wrote: > >> Rex Dieter <rdieter <at> math.unl.edu> writes: > >>> FESCo discussed this awhile back (not sure when), and (pretty much) veto'd > >>> the compat-python option. > >> I find it pretty sad that FESCo is vetoing packages which don't have licensing > >> (including copyright/patent/trademark) or serious security issues. If someone > >> is willing to maintain such a package, why not let them? > > b/c of the maintenance headache it adds to the entire distribution > > Can't be worse then Xen afaics. Or will we throw that out, too, as > upstream doesn't make sure it runs on latest kernels? Ohh wait, I > suppose Xen is special? Realistically? Xen as it stands was a mistake. Just because we've made them in the past doesn't mean that we should continue to do so. Jeremy -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
