[Proposal] Ring-based Packaging Policies

[Sergio Pascual]

> >
> > Also RH and other distros history repeatedly has told the lesson
> > such will not fly and are doomed to fail.
>
> It seems to have been working just fine in RPMFusion, where the free
> and nonfree repositories have different standards for inclusion, and
> where packages in nonfree can depend on packages in free, but not the
> other way.
>

The only difference in both repositories is the license of the software.
The package guidelines are exactly the same as Fedora's (with the exception
of kernel modules) in both repos.


> At another scale, it seems to not be working too badly already for
> Fedora+RPMFusion, where Fedora and RPMFusion have different standards
> for inclusion, and where packages in RPMFusion can depend on packages
> in Fedora, but not the other way.
>

The standard for inclusion in rpmfusion is not being elegible to be in
Fedora. Again, the reasons are purelly legal (with the exception of kernel
modules). Again, there is no difference in the guidelines (bundled
libraries must be unblundled, etc)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20150217/5f82eaad/attachment.html>