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

Re: Package Maintainers Flags policy





On Tue, 19 May 2009, Colin Walters wrote:

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Seth Vidal <skvidal fedoraproject org> wrote:

It's also completely possible that freeciv may not be a package we can ship.

Not have at all in RPM form on the mirrors and in the repo list you
mean?  That's a pretty harsh solution.  There's degrees here.  I could
imagine for example that for some consumers of Fedora, being able to
automatically strip out the controversial packages when
redistributing, and have yum be able to skip listing
-flags/controversial packages would be enough for them.  That seems to
be some of the logic behind the current flags policy, though please
correct me if I'm wrong.


We'd need:
1. some kind of plugin to handle it
2. some sort of provides tag in the rpm

that's a lot of crap to do in lieu of just not shipping the pkg.


If someone packaged a "free taiwan" game where you protested the PRC and
wheeled and dealed to get various world gov'ts to officially recognize
taiwan (an amusing game premise, actually) I think we'd probably have to not
ship it. Just as if someone packaged a game adaptation of "springtime for
hitler and germany." (from the producers musical/movie for anyone who
doesn't get the reference) we'd probably not ship it.

Well, luckily for us the vast majority of these kinds of things are
Flash games on the web now, so they're not our problem.

yet.

-sv


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