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

Re: Heads up, slight tree path change



Jesse Keating wrote:
As part of a continuing effort to make derivative distributions of
Fedora easier, we're making the path names within the tree a bit more
generic.  Instead of os/Fedora/<packages>  the path will now be
os/Packages/<packages>.

This seems like a good time to bring up this question regarding derivative distributions-

Is it okay - (and I'm pretty sure the current position is yes, but I'd like reassurance, and ideally a wiki/faq entry if none exists already)

- to include the fedora-release rpm (not fedora-logos) in a derivative distribution?

If not, what I am more specifically interested in, is the fedora rpm gpg key, and the yum configurations that point at fedora servers.

In some sense, this facilitates derivative distributions 'leeching' resources from fedora. But it seems like this is currently allowed, and given the moves to encourage derivative distros, I suspect fedora does not have a problem with this.

Then the final question of course would be, since derivative distros of this nature are using binaries actually built by fedora, will fedora be willing to go the extra mile and offer written assurance to keep the source rpms available for 3 years, or whatever the whole fallout from the gpl-derivative-distro thread of recent history was.

I mean, it seems plain silly to force derivative distros, that are using binaries compiled and provided by fedora, to maintain a mirror of the source rpms. Especially if as above, the yum configs in the derivative distros are pointing at fedora servers anyway.

Thoughts?  Pointers to existing wiki/faqs that -

google://"fedora derivative distributions policy"

didn't make utterly obvious?

Thanks,

-dmc


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