On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 22:40, Austin wrote: > 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.
This is starting to sound like 'plausible deniability'. It didn't work for Kennedy, it won't work for Mandrake...=) -- adamw
