Tony Nelson wrote:
At 6:00 PM +0200 6/15/07, Axel Thimm wrote:
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tctmm6wHVGT/P6vA"
Content-Disposition: inline
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 08:58:34AM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 12:38 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
Please decide on what is better, if you want the FPC to exempt
fedora-logos I'll bring it up there. But maybe the subpackage split is
preferred.
It has been extensively discussed that splitting is not an option
because legal wants us to keep all trademarked images in a single
package.
Spliting is *the option* along with teaching legal not to impose such
braindead non-technical issues.
...
I would guess that Legal wants there to be a single package whose removal
removes all trademarked artwork. I think their purpose is to make it
simple for third parties to do legal re-issues from source, as CentOS does.
Perhaps third parties also like having a single RPM to redo from scratch.
Actually, couldn't that be done if the package was split into
subpackages, and the new subpackage containing logos required at boot
became a requirement of fedora-logos ?
If you then pirut or yum remove fedora-logos, fedora-logos-boot would
get uninstalled as well ? And legal stays happy :)
DaveT.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
