On 03/18/2015 05:46 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Mike Pinkerton wrote:
What I don't understand is the wisdom of an official Fedora
"product" endorsing a copr when either the software or packaging (or
both) is not of sufficient quality to make it into the official
Fedora repo.
I don't think of it as a endorsement.
I see them as a means of discouraging people from packaging for Fedora:
Ask yourself: "Why should I package a package properly, when I can get
off 'cheap'?" - msuchy's rationale is along this line.
It is making them more easily
discoverable but there is going to be a prompt of some sort that warns
them of the nature of such software and users get to choose whether they
are willing to accept that tradeoff for immediate access. One might
choose to use say, Chromium regardless of the bundling issues for example.
There are many more ways why a package not to be eligible for Fedora
than "bundling":
- Illegal/patent-encumbered in the US, but legal to distribute in other
countries.
- Legal to distribute binaries, repackaged for "packager lazyness",
(e.g. Java) or complexity (foreign arch binaries needed to support
cross-toolchains).
- Content-only packages (Videos, Audiofiles).
- Packages with ethical/political controversial contents.
...
In other words, if you are really serious about this plan, you need some
authority to continuously review the packages in such "endorsed" repos,
technically, legally and "politically".
Ralf
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
