Referring to rpmfusion on Fedora project wiki?

James Antill james at fedoraproject.org
Wed Feb 25 15:53:00 UTC 2009


On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 23:04 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:32:23PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> > The only criteria is this:
> > 
> > 1) The repository can not be involved in a claim of infringement
> > (copyright, patent, trademark, license), nor can I or Red Hat be aware
> > of any material which leads us to believe that infringement is likely.
> > 2) The repository must not duplicate packages contained within the
> > Fedora package repositories.
> 
> The second one isn't a legal issue, is it? And some in the Fedora
> community do appreciate that some packages are offered in an extended
> way adding build time dependencies that are not in Fedora itself for
> various reasons (probably for similar reasons the third party repo
> exist at the first place).
> 
> Wrt ATrpms while the tendency has been to remove as much as possible
> overlap I think we are not 100% there to having a solely add-on repo.
> 
> What I want to say is that don't make policies that will only allow
> the One and Only Repo to pass.

 Doing this does place a significant burden on Fedora though, esp. on
upgrades (and esp. on distro. upgrades). It would be _much_ nicer if the
override packages would live in a separate repo. from the purely add-on
packages, this also significantly helps out the users who know they can
enable repo XYZ because they won't be getting anything they didn't ask
for explicitly.

-- 
James Antill <james at fedoraproject.org>
Fedora




More information about the devel mailing list