Fedora/RH policies sometimes suck

[Arthur Pemberton]

On 4/10/07, Anne Wilson <cannewilson at googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 April 2007 05:31, Ed Greshko wrote:
> > linuxmaillists at charter.net wrote:
> >
> > > I just want to know what other
> > > packages are on the Fedora distro that are are missing
> > > original functionality simply because of legal issues.
> >
> > And that would help how?  Yes, you'd know what you're missing...but you
> > already know you're missing "something" so why not install the OpenOffice
> > rpms and be assured of missing nothing.



> No-one is answering the question.  Forget the OpenOffice fixation.  The
> question is 'How do we know which of Fedora's packages have been altered in
> this way?'

I suppose you might say that you didn't like my ambiguous,
non-official response, but I would prefer that you hold me to some
regard higher than "no-one". I'll attempt a response again.

OpenOffice is the first I have heard of this. And while I believe this
particular thing is a small thing, I suppose others disagree. If you
know of other specific cases, let us know... maybe someone can keep
track. But to my knowledge no such list exists, what does exist is the
publicly known policy. Again, no such list as that you request exists
to my knowledge.

And besides OpenOffice, which I wasn't aware of, I am aware of no
other such deficiencies. And lack of codecs do not fit this bill since
codecs aren't part of the program. The feature in question here was
part of the program.

> OpenOffice would be one, but there are others.  Totem comes to
> mind, and I'd guess that there are lots more.  As Les remarked, it could be
> indicated in the package name.

Or, one could be aware of Fedora's fairly simple and straight forward policies.

> As for how it would help, we could then decide for ourselves whether we need
> to go to the source and build our own packages.
>
> Anne

You could always do that. Have you suffered from any such "stripping" before?

-- 
Fedora Core 6 and proud