Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 --- Comment #19 from Matthias Runge <mrunge@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #18) > In general, there's no we as "we control and decide which kind of package > comes in or not in Fedora". If there's anybody interested and needing it, > and does the work, and its free sw, and it does comply with Fedora Packaging > Guide Lines, any package is welcome. Hmm, but what about two packages a and b, b is a fork of a and both are providing nearly the same? What about, if a is really actively maintained, b just a project of one person? IMHO, we exactly have the situation here? I'm sharing Steve's concern; basically it's the same policy as the no-bundled-libs policy (even it's not named the same way, and here's nothing bundled at all, but this policy follows the original idea). @Steve: Do you have a suggestion, how to make duff https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857639 work with our coreutils package? IMHO duff is the only package using this package sha. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review