On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 07:38:42PM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 01:19 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > It isn't that simple. Do we also want community handle on fedora or > > not? I really like redhat leadership and innovations, but I don't want > > to be a puppet either. If people from the community with specific needs > > and wants are to be accepted in fedora, it means that radical simplicity > > is not possible. > > Oh nice. Now you're playing the "RH vs. community" card. Priceless. News > flash: this is _not_ about RH vs. the community. It's about realizing > that software development is _hard_. It's about realizing that throwing It is not exactly "RH vs. community". I just want to make sure that things like xdm, initng, fluxbox, compat packages, xpdf or a non linux kernel (all are things that are duplicates of other packages) are still welcomed in fedora. After all it is not necessarily an issue if not, but this should be stated explicitely. My personal understanding of fedora was that a package was accepted as long as it was free software, usable in fedora, and decently integrated. Isn't it still the case? In fact there are already guidelines and FESCo rulings that in my opinion went in that direction (precisely, and if I recall well, the fnord and another package of Enrico that were linked statically against uclibc, and even he demonstrated that there was a performance gain and no security issue they were knocked down). I think that it was a wrong decision, but if it is for corner case it is different than if it becomes the rule. -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list