Les Mikesell <lesmikesell <at> gmail.com> writes:
> > By the way, have you really tried it?
> No
Then why not try it and complain about specific things which don't work, so
they can be fixed, either in OpenJDK/IcedTea if that's where the problem is, or
in OpenNMS if that's at fault?
> If it's so easy, perhaps you could check out a copy and offer them the
> fixes.
Are fixes even needed? What's broken exactly? You haven't even tried it...
> > Are you trying to fault Fedora for including what they can include?
>
> Yes, both for shipping a non-conforming implementation which harms
> everyone involved, and for not shipping something to fix up the package
> dependencies and alternatives symlinks peculiar to fedora when a user
> installs a conforming implementation.
Then you are a lunatic who really doesn't understand what Fedora is about.
Fedora will include whatever it can include without violating its guidelines.
If you want proprietary crap, you're at the wrong address. If you want Fedora
not to ship anything which has a proprietary equivalent, that would mean
shipping essentially nothing, after all there's a proprietary kernel, a
proprietary office suite etc. What you're asking for makes no sense.
> I can't parse any of that. The jpackage nosrc packages don't include
> any non-free bits - they just adjust things for fedora oddness.
JPackage has no guideline which forbids Free packages to have dependencies
(RPM "Requires:") on non-Free ones, and there are some which do, even where it
is possible to build the package without that dependency. Fedora had to patch
out those dependencies when importing those packages. I don't remember the
exact affected packages, but I do remember there were some packages which had
non-Free dependencies removed as part of the import into Fedora.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
