[Fedora-packaging] Re: Announcing Dribble a new addon repo for Fedora Extras users

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 10:08 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 05:32 -0500, Callum Lerwick wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 09:52 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > What I was trying to say with the above message is that if someone else
> > > is willing to have the discussion for a package here and if the outcome
> > > is that the package is ok for Extras then I'm more then happy to move it
> > > to Extras including putting it through review (again as all packages in
> > > dribble are already reviewed).
> > 
> > I'll do it! (I used various Atari STs from 1987 to 1997...)
> > 
> > On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 12:36 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: 
> > > I believe the rule of thumb here is that if we have freely 
> > > redistributable "data" that runs on these emulators, we can include the 
> > > emulator in extras. In other words, the question to ask yourself, is 
> > > there any legal and Free software uses for the emulators?
> > 
> > 
> > Since there's GPL ROMs available[1], and the commonly used FreeMiNT
> > kernel is apparently a mix of GPL and BSD[2], and most anything open
> > source has been ported, and even packaged into RPMs[3], seems to me any
> > Atari ST series emulator should be okay in Extras. ARAnyM can even run
> > Linux/68k[4].
> > 
> > Anyone disagree? Do we need a FESCo blessing?
> 
> No disagreement here. This is fine for Fedora.
Well, though I agree to you, I think you are about to construct a
precedence, which longs for an explanation, which probably should be
reflected to the package guidelines:

This case clearly violates:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SourceRequirement

and also is not covered by
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BinaryFirmware

These ROMs aren't a linux system's firmware, these are a foreign
system's firmware, to be interpreted by an interpreter (emulator).

Ralf