What do we think of this?

[Greg Dekoenigsberg]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Jesse Keating wrote:

> They have "non-free" as in not open source in different repos, but 
> "non-free" as in "against US law" while it is still opensource may not 
> be in a different repo.  That said, even if the non-free stuff is in a 
> different repo, they still maintain that repo and can coordinate the 
> deps across and such.  Fedora by nature makes it so that the non-free 
> stuff has to exist outside the Fedora umbrella where we have no control 
> over the repo and no good integration.

Surely it's not in the interests of the 3rd party repos to contribute to 
Fedora breakage.  Right?

Is it *theroetically* possible to have a set of standards that unofficial 
repos could follow to be less likely to break us?  And if so, what 
prevents those standards from being created, and met?

Maybe these are stupid questions -- but I like putting stupid questions on 
the record.

--g

-------------------------------------------------------------
Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org
Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors
-------------------------------------------------------------