On 11/21/2009 10:42 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le samedi 21 novembre 2009 à 04:31 +0100, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :
On 11/20/2009 01:22 PM, Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
This is really tricky since there's essentially a continuum from
content that has no purpose in Fedora (project Gutenberg) to content
that must be in fedora (default wallpapers). Just my 0.02 EUR in the
situation, i wonder if it is a good idea to start up a third party
repo, like the Repo-He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named that provides everything
that's questionable from a purpose perspective.
Yes, this idea also had come to my mind. The more I think about it, the
more I like it.
Well I don't, unless you decide to evaluate the "purpose" of every
binary in Fedora. The "purpose" of "content" is that someone found it
useful enough to jump through the hoops of Fedora packager sponsorship
and Fedora review.
You will always find somebody who finds any arbitrary content useful for
something, ...
When you see the stuff that ends in the repo nowadays I don't see why
"non-code" packagers should be guettoized just because they're not
dealing with exalted code such as an nth broken music player, MUA,
<insert random crap we package here>.
We are talking about _mere content_ packages, here, ie. strictly
optional "eye/ear" candy packages, things like background package of
"your favorite city", "your child", "your pet", "your car/house/boat", ...
In this case, we are talking about somebody having submitted pictures of
London as background images ...
The "code" vs "content" terminology is completely broken. No one really
defined what "code" was.
Well, we had discussed this 100s of times before, however the topic is
non-trivial.
Ralf
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
