half baked idea for further baking: "fedora-ugly" repo

[Matthew Miller]

On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 11:13:03AM -0500, John Dulaney wrote:
> Putting on my QA hat here, I think that we need to ensure that packages
> run through full depcheck rather than just get checked for conflicts.

Sounds reasonable.

> In fact, they should run through the full automation process once we that
> up and running.

Also sounds good, although depending on what those tests are some failures
could be warnings rather than blockers.

> Also, I do not believe that we should ever have a package in our distro that
> does not meet licensing.  If Fedora even hints at shipping non-open source
> software, then you're going to drive a bunch of people away.

Agreed -- this would be quite a few steps beyond a third-party repo. License
compliance is required for COPRs, and this is a step more towards the center
of Fedora than that.

-- 
Matthew Miller    --   Fedora Project    --    <mattdm at fedoraproject.org>