F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support
sergio.pasra at gmail.com
Thu Mar 19 11:15:40 UTC 2015
2015-03-18 18:51 GMT+01:00 Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at freenet.de>:
> On 03/18/2015 05:46 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> 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
> - Illegal/patent-encumbered in the US, but legal to distribute in other
> - Legal to distribute binaries, repackaged for "packager lazyness", (e.g.
> Java) or complexity (foreign arch binaries needed to support
> - 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
In fact, in the last meeting of the Workstation WG, one of the action items
* Third party repositories (stickster, 15:41:18)
is interesting. (stickster, 15:48:12)
* LINK: https://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/spot/chromium/ , F21 last
updated in january (kalev, 16:08:47)
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
**Go for Chrome next.**
Here is the full text.
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the devel