codec buddy pain

[seth vidal]

On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 17:06 -0500, Christopher Blizzard wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote:
> > Yes, exactly.  Chris' statement earlier seemed to imply we did
> > something in F8 to make it technically possible to get legal codecs,
> > where that really isn't the case.  It was just made easier.
> >   
> Easier is important.  But that's not the point.  I think that Seth's 
> worried that we're using our valuable real estate to promote a company.  
> A special exemption, if you will.  And I'm fine with it.  If there were 
> another company you could get the same stuff from I would suggest that 
> we add them as an option.  But we're not there right now.
> 

My concern is the next time a company comes to us with the same.

Maybe they want a package in the distro which just installs a yum plugin
and a .repo file.

The plugin pops up a message everytime you run yum in interactive which
says "don't you need bitkeeper for all your software development needs?
Press 'yes' here to have bitkeeper installed for you" And then it goes
out to some repo and installs it for them.

Now, if this were a 'package' of some kind it might get rejected -
though there's no reason in the packaging guidelines to do so. However,
if the company behind bitkeeper came to us and agreed to give fedora/red
hat a big lump of cash in exchange for us to include this package, by
default, in the distro I want to be sure we have a reason/way to say no.

That's what I'm worried about.

unrelated: the above is an interesting use case for yum plugins :)

-sv