Package looking for a sponsor

[Andreas Bierfert]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Paul F. Johnson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
>>>Quoting GregDeKoenigsberg from the Fedora Foundation: "Business
>>>considerations that prevented certain Mono components from being
>>>included in Fedora previously have now been resolved."
>>
>>Which, to be blunt, tells us nothing at all.
> 
> 
> Actually, it tells you that mono is go and as such, we can package and
> release mono components in Core and (presumably) Extras.

Maybe it does but I guess what people are wondering about (but do not spell out)
is this: Why was this decision made without talking to FESCo and the FE
community? All this silent stuff that went on behind our backs (just stressing
;) ). This statement is what it is basically nothing. I don't think that we need
to know everything about what maybe went on in legal but at least FESCo/FE
community deserved to hear from this beforehand. What I would have expected is a
mail maybe to the packagers list with a heads up for the FE people that their
packages will be pulled into core because mono (for some reason or the other)
gets included and so on (see other threads and flames about this).

Maybe rejecting mono stuff from extras for now will get us this explanation
maybe it won't. I don't know but this maybe the reason for this reaction and
other reactions we see.

I want to stress that this is simply my understanding of the stuff that is going
on atm and _not_ my opinion on the topic... after all I am pro _fedora_.

- - Andreas

- --
Andreas Bierfert               | http://awbsworld.de      | GPG: C58CF1CB
andreas.bierfert at lowlatency.de | http://lowlatency.de     | signed/encrypted
phone: +49 2402 102373         | cell: +49 172 9789968    | mail preferred
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDz4sNQEQyPsWM8csRAlA5AJ9BMoRVLQvySD5c3shzcscnU78UGQCfRz65
tQAO4lQdQSrO5sMpO38mfVo=
=NoCv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----