F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

[Sergio Pascual]

2015-03-18 18:51 GMT+01:00 Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at freenet.de>:

> 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".
>
>
>
The idea of use disabled-third-party-repos to ship non free software has
been discused in the desktop list, this for example

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2015-February/011634.html

In fact, in the last meeting of the Workstation WG, one of the action items
is:

* Third party repositories  (stickster, 15:41:18)
  * LINK:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#Summary_table
    is interesting.  (stickster, 15:48:12)
  * LINK: https://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/spot/chromium/ , F21 last
    updated in january  (kalev, 16:08:47)
  * LINK:
    https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/churchyard/chromium-russianfedora/
    is the other i was thinking of  (jwb, 16:09:29)
  * AGREED: Go for Chrome next  (stickster, 16:15:39)
  * ACTION: cschalle stickster work up justification for Council and
    review gnome-software text for an appropriate warning to suggest
    (stickster, 16:16:12)

**Go for Chrome next.**

Here is the full text.

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2015-March/011722.html

I said in my first message that the purpose of the Change is to help people
to install non-free software. Probably I was wrong and there are legitimate
uses. Anyway what is true is that *some people* wants to use this Change to
make it easy to install non-free software.



Sergio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20150319/56ab07ab/attachment.html>