https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522 Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) <kwizart@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |182235 (FE-Legal) --- Comment #54 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) <kwizart@xxxxxxxxx> --- Blocking FE-Legal, as it describes more was the current situation is. Personally I would prefer this package to be free and in fedora, even partially. But it's clearly not the case. Not only, this package is GPL incompatible and I'm not going to re-state the detail on purpose here. So far, Fesco only approved this build "if" it's free. Fesco did not describe a method to make both ends works as appropriate WRT the packaging side, so the situation is still moot. The current proposal is in-appropriate. It only describes one end of the task and leave the other part of the work to someone else that yet isn't nominated. Worst, it will make the package to supersede the current version we package without bringing more value to fedora+rpmfusion users. Not replacing any "base distro" package is one core value of our project, so we cannot accept a situation where, even if nothing as changed in our side, we would be turned into a situation where we would not follow this non-replacement guideline anymore. The other issue is "how the packaging would be done", as this package is a fork of the original fdk-aac project. Because of the fork, both projects can live a different way and because we want to have full hands on the way we update the fdk-aac package based on the original project, we don't want to be in a situation where we would wait for a downstream fork for update in order to have a "coherent situation" WRT complementary packages and ABI, etc. As a coordinator of a third party project, I retain the rights not to provide, not to replace and not to complement any fdk-aac component that would be introduced in fedora by a packager without any coordination with our project. With that said, I would like to explicitly leave a room for anyone mandated to "do the complementary job" to use the rpmfusion packagers infra for such purpose. (provided that few restrictions are left on the infra side). This hold for the general kind of such issue and in a more general manner I would like to think on a written guideline to prevent such "half backed idea" to hit the fedora repos in the future. That, in order to strength the unwritten guideline of not re-using the package namespace if a fedora package is an incomplete version of a package that is already found on our well known repository. While at it, I still have an alternatives method in mind that would prevent this fdk-aac package to hit our "non-replacement policy". It would be to have a "side repo" similar to the openh264 case (or even to share the same repo). That way, it would be possible to enable such repository on user request, if our repository isn't enabled. As the consequence, none would have to deal with bugs introduced by the other party and to deal with the complementary mess. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
