could the "missing codec" redirection be more informative?

[Ed Greshko]

Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Ed Greshko wrote:
>
>   
>> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>>     
>>>   on a fresh (and barely configured) f12 system, i tried to view
>>> my first online .wmv file and was redirected here:
>>>
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageKit_Items_Not_Found#Missing_Codec
>>>
>>> which is moderately informative in terms of telling me what the
>>> problem is, but utterly useless in terms of telling me how to fix
>>> it.
>>>
>>>   yes, i realize the issues surrounding codecs, but would it be
>>> unduly difficult to add to that section some advice on where to
>>> *find* such codecs?  you know, point readers at rpmfusion or some
>>> such?  is that not a legally acceptable thing to do?  because
>>> that's *exactly* the sort of thing that will drive newcomers to
>>> fedora totally nuts.
>>>
>>>       
>> AFAIK, it is not legally acceptable to explicitly tell someone how
>> to break the law.
>>
>> I hope nobody starts to argue about how silly they think these laws
>> are.....
>>     
>
>   um ... ok.  in that case, why is fedoraproject.org explicitly
> pointing people at rpmfusion.org here?
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/OtherRepositories
>
>   
But, they are not explicitly solving a given problem for you.   Subtle
difference.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20091123/cde789d3/attachment-0001.sig>