On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 01:57 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> 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?
Sure, live free or die etc. But you cannot expect maintainers of core
packages to simply bend over just because you think it's l33t to e.g.
have a non Linux kernel. Moreover, I'm pretty sure, by just reading your
mails, that you don't realize what using a non Linux kernel even
entails.
> 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.
Ooo.. here's the "it's in the guidelines so do as I say" card. Annoying.
Seriously. People. What the hell happened to simplicity and building a
free OS for the world that just works? Is the state of Fedora really in
such a bad shape that people think it's necessary have craptastic
options like "what kernel would you like today?". Seriously, things like
that is just masturbation and we in Fedora should be above that. I feel
that people wanting this are treating Fedora like it's a playground for
their Toy OS ideas. Playing classic cards like "RH vs. community" and
"this or that committee says so" to justify their "ideas". It's
seriously tiring. Is this what Fedora is becoming? Because if it is,
I'll find something else to spend my time on.
David
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
