[Fedora-packaging] code vs. content

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 11/20/2009 01:22 PM, Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
> nn2009/11/20 Ralf Corsepius<rc040203 at freenet.de>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> There is a package (london pictures) under review[1], which I consider to be
>> a corner case wrt. "Code vs. content"[2].
>>
>> The problem I have with this package providing a precedence of how to
>> circumvent Fedora's regulations/guidelines etc. to use Fedora as means to
>> distribute "mere content".
>>
>> In other words, I fear this package is a precedence to opens a can of worms
>> for content packages.
>>
>> What to do about this package and about this issue in general?
>>
>> My gut feeling is, Fedora should refine their "code vs. content" rules,
>> otherwise we will soon Fedora being filled up with arbitrary
>> "photo/sound/video collections" disguised as "backgrounds", "sound fonts",
>> etc.
>
> This is really tricky since there's essentially a continuum from
> content that has no purpose in Fedora (project Gutenberg) to content
> that must be in fedora (default wallpapers). Just my 0.02 EUR in the
> situation, i wonder if it is a good idea to start up a third party
> repo, like the Repo-He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named that provides everything
> that's questionable from a purpose perspective.
Yes, this idea also had come to my mind. The more I think about it, the 
more I like it.

However, I am having doubts if this would be practical and if it would 
have a long term perpective.

Actually I'd expect such a repository to either starve out soon or to 
evolve into a huge Fedora "-media", "-tube", "-tunes", "-flickr" or similar.

> This could include
> packaging all the bits found in {gnome,kde}-look and similar sites.
> Then we can judge by how popular it is, and how the situation
> develops, how critical and necessary it is for Fedora's greater
> Purpose.

One problem would remain on Fedora's side: Where to draw the line 
between "contents allowed in Fedora" and "content not allowed in Fedora"?

Ralf