Le Dimanche 9 Mars 2003 23:40, Austin a �crit :
> On 2003.03.09 17:13 Michael Scherer wrote:
> > Hum, and they will deny that plf is in urpmi.setup ?
>
> Urpmi.setup is in contribs, was written by a non-employee, and the binary
> has absolutely no mention of PLF. In fact, removing PLF from the source
> code would break the pristine-sources rule anyway. :-)
>
> > They will deny that the same src.rpm is used for plf and main version of
> > mplayer ?
>
> Who denied that?
> The same configure script is used for freetype with or without bytecode
> interpreter. Should we stop using freetype alltogether?
> The source rpm is just a script.
>
> > And that, sometimes, some of their own developers post on plf-discuss ?
>
> What's wrong with that?
> PLF and Mandrake share no administration and no finances. The fact that
> many people contribute to both does not inherently make any corporate
> connection between them.
I think Micha�l point was just that refering to a 3rd party document that also
mention PLF is a lesser connection than any of those point.
If you really want your document hosted directly at mandrakesoft.com, you may
be correct avoiding such direct references, but you lost control on it, both
technically (more difficulties to update it) and editorialy (less freedom in
what you can say).
I really think than we (the community) should instead try to build our own
website, who could act as a reference point for the many documentation
efforts going on:
- this howto
- the cooker wiki
- urpmi.org
- rpm skeleton files from Han
- bug reporting howto from Ben
- new bug reporting howto
etc..
Maybe mandrakesoft.com could drop mandrake.org domain name in favor of such
project ?
--
If such a program has not crashed yet, it is waiting for a critical moment
before it crashes.
-- Murphy's Computer Laws n�6
