Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > It's way better to have a gray repo rather than putting black sheep in > the main repo just because some packagers find them too convenient to > drop (and are ready to accept the convenience/security compromise a > uninformed user may not find so cool) > I disagree, one one side we already have to much repos as is, and on the other side some repos (the repo that should not be named) really need a a split, currently the repo that should not be named contains anything thats non free one way or the other. But most of that stuff is fine in the US and could / should be on a repo for which we can advertise. I would like to see the following FE-guidelines following repos (All non free without the Fedora name, but still in accordance with all the other FE-guidelines): -Fedora Core -Fedora Extras -XXX Non commercial use (otherwise 100% free) -XXX patent encumbered (aka non US) -XXX Non free Currently all XXX stuff is on the repo which should not be named whcih is not a good thing. If we also create supported and semi supported versions of repo's you all of a sudden have made a one dimensional problem 2 dimensional which is a bad idea. Either a package meets our quality standards or it doesn't its really that simple. Regards, Hans -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
