Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450164 Ken Sedgwick <ken+5a4@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(ken+5a4@xxxxxxxxx | |m) | --- Comment #33 from Ken Sedgwick <ken+5a4@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-10 18:14:17 EDT --- I'm afraid I'm a little burned out ... I've been through this three times in as many years; each time the license turns out to be a blocker. I'm worried that if I invest a bunch more time it will prove to be a blocker again. More importantly, getting ACE into Fedora without TAO actually makes life *harder* for my clients. They use *both* ACE and TAO and need a solution for both. Getting ACE into Fedora makes it much harder to generate the TAO packages externally since the same build creates both. I think I'd rather just distribute the ACE and TAO packages the way I already do. If someone else wants to try and get a subset into the Fedora repo I'd be happy to help in a lightweight manner. I'm guessing my effort would be better spent with a repository that would accept the TAO licenses as well; maybe Livna? This seems like a much better use of my effort ... Apologies for not expressing this sooner ... Ken -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review