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

Re: Package Maintainers Flags policy

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 6:57 AM, Bill Nottingham <notting redhat com> wrote:
> Is it catering to paranoia of a particular government? Yes. (So are
> the T-6 restriction, FWIW.)  Is it annoying? Yes.  However, changing the
> scope of various governments is fairly out of scope of Fedora; let's stick
> to what we can change.

What are the T-6 restrictions? A google search only came up with this thread.

I'm trying to understand your logic, are you saying that if the
Chinese government no longer recognized other languages as being
valid, then we would have to remove all languages from Fedora?  Is
that not the exact same logic you are applying to flags?

> It comes down to a tradeoff; it's essentially a pragmatic decision. Are the
> gains by making it acceptable in China (or similar locales) worth the effort in
> changing/removing some small number of packages? Given the benefits in
> opening up the community to 1/6 of the planet's population, and the fact
> that in most all cases, the flags aren't a crucial portion of the
> functionality *of the project* that is exposed to users, I think so.

Why not make a China spin?  There is a Russia spin in the works is
there not?  Why not a China spin?  In the China spin we can make all
flags the Chinese flag.

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