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

Re: Package requests wishlist - pine



On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 11:43:00 -0500 (CDT), Rex Dieter
<rdieter math unl edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
> 
> Note that this is intended for Extras, *not* Core.  By "Fedora", if you
> meant "Fedora Core", then I'd agree with you 100%.

I think you make too fine a distinction between Core and Extras,
especially in this case, where the licensing issue directly impacts
the ability of a package maintainer to do the right thing when it
comes to dealing patching the package.  It's just as important for
maintainers of Fedora Extras packages as it is for Core packages to be
able to roll in patches when its in the best interest of the userbase.
 I think the best way to look at Fedora Extras as an extention of Core
not as something distinctly different moving forward. Extras is not
and will not be a dumping ground for unmaintainable packages. Not
being able to provide critical patches... makes pine unmaintainable at
the packaging level.  Think of Fedora Core+Extras as the full
distribution, of potentially encompassing as much non-conflicting
functionality and projects as legally possible. Looking at it that
way, Core and Extras are meant to share the same packaging quality and
package stewardship practices,  meeting much of the same criteria as
to what is expected of a packager.

-jef"patch patch patch all day long, patch patch patch while i sing
this song"spaleta



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