Jeremy Katz schrieb: > 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. Hehe :) Well, I strongly dislike this decision we did for zope, as it creates much hassle for users. But users is what we do this distribution for. But whatever: I assume somebody made sure this annoyance got documented properly in the release notes to avoid users misfile bugs and send confusing reports? As FESCo is indirectly responsible for zope missing now I assume FESCo itself also directly or indirectly took care of documenting this properly? CU thl -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
