Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795
--- Comment #21 from Guillermo Gómez <[email protected]> --- (In reply to comment #19) > (In reply to comment #18) > > In general, there's no we as "we control and decide which kind of package > > comes in or not in Fedora". If there's anybody interested and needing it, > > and does the work, and its free sw, and it does comply with Fedora Packaging > > Guide Lines, any package is welcome. > > Hmm, but what about two packages a and b, b is a fork of a and both are > providing nearly the same? Nearly means they are not providing exactly the same functionality. > What about, if a is really actively maintained, b > just a project of one person? Actively maintained is not a term mandated by the numbers of upstream contributors, it could be one maintainer or a large community. Certainly i prefer a large community behind it ;) but that's no reason to reject a package. > I'm sharing Steve's concern; basically it's the same policy as the > no-bundled-libs policy (even it's not named the same way, and here's nothing > bundled at all, but this policy follows the original idea). hmm im not sure what exactly are yo trying to say here. no-bundled-libs policy is being respected here, sha is the result afaik. > @Steve: Do you have a suggestion, how to make duff > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857639 > work with our coreutils package? IMHO duff is the only package using this > package sha. Thats one good point, but that's up to upstream to do. :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
