[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [fab] Re: openmotif



On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 22:48 +0530, Rahul wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 12:53 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 29 August 2006 12:41, Rahul wrote:
> >>> Yes.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2006-August/msg00081.htm
> >>> l
> >> This mail has absolutely no info regarding why a package would be acceptable 
> >> for Extras when it isn't acceptable for Core.  This disturbs me greatly.  If 
> >> the license isn't good enough for core, it shouldn't be in Extras either.
> > 
> > +1
> > 
> > Extras is not a dumping ground for packages that aren't suitable for
> > Core.  If someone wants to push a package from Core -> Extras, it still
> > goes through a review.  Openmotif will fail that review immediately,
> > given that it's license is not OSI compatible.
> > 
> > josh
> 
> 
> We *already* have many packages both in Fedora Core and Fedora Extras 
> that dont meet the guidelines. If we are going to clean it up, we can do 
> so in a better manner than just dumping out packages.
> 
Then openmotif needs to stay in Core until the packages that depend on
it are ported to lesstif or decided that they can be thrown out.

> The only reason that I am suggesting we move these packages into Fedora 
> Extras as a *intermediate* step and as a exception to the guidelines is 
> that community contributors are interested 
> (https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2006-August/msg00078.html) 
> in helping out and we cant do that easily by keeping them in Fedora 
> Core.

There's nothing that community developers can do with openmotif to make
it suitable for Fedora Extras.  You can propose sending the packages
which have a dependency on openmotif to Extras where we can work on
porting them to lesstif (or gtk2 :-)

>    The other option is to dump out openmotif and all its 
> dependencies now since none of them in their current state meet the 
> guidelines.

So:
1) openmotif stays in Core, packages which depend on it move to Extras
Reviews.  Packages are ported to another toolkit so openmotif can get
booted from Core and a time period is established for openmotif to be
booted.

2) openmotif is moved to Extras along with all the packages that depend
on it.  Packages are ported to another toolkit so openmotif can get
booted from Extras and a time period is established for openmotif to be
booted.

3) openmotif is dropped from Core and Extras.  Maybe it moves to a third
party repository.  Packages which can work with lesstif remain in the
same repository as lesstif, those that can't are dropped or picked up by
a third part repository until they can run with one of the OSI/FSF
approved toolkits.

I'd just like to +1 Josh Bowyer's sentiments here, Extras is not a
dumping ground for packages that aren't suitable for Core.  Core can
keep openmotif for now (#1) or we can drop it (#3) and suffer the
consequences but I'm also against moving cruft into Extras just to clean
up after a mess in Core.  I've been teaching my kids not to sweep the
crumbs off the table onto the floor and this is the same kind of action.

-Toshio

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]