Including OO templates in fc4

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le mardi 08 mars 2005 à 11:50 -0800, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
> Hi
> 
> > A lot of people distrust autopackage because by
> > letting every random
> > project release its binaries the way it wants it
> > sidesteps the sanity
> > and consistency checks a real distro does.
> 
> not true since not a lot of people dont use
> autopackage at all yet. if you mean they distrust the
> distributed model of letting upstream developers
> release the binaries themselves instead of relying on
> the centralised and distro redundant centralised
> repository model then they dont the usefulness of a
> distro neutral packaging method. besides autopackage
> has planned rpm integration for a future version. you
> should take any valid complaints to the developers
> themselves and give them a chance to explain the
> logic.

I'm not here to argue the pros and cons of autopackage.

The fact is autopackage has not convinced an overwhelming majority of
Linux users yet, and therefore it would be stupid of OpenOffice.org
(which is not in the Linux packaging market and only wants to distribute
its stuff as widely as possible) to back autopackage exclusively.

If I wanted to give partisan advice like you seem to I wouldn't have
mentioned both debs and rpms in the message you replied to.

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20050308/38c5231d/attachment.sig>