[Fedora-packaging] code vs. content
rc040203 at freenet.de
Fri Nov 20 05:30:50 UTC 2009
On 11/20/2009 05:53 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> Just this morning I was noting ("complaining about", I guess) this on
>>>>>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius<rc040203 at freenet.de> writes:
> RC> The problem I have with this package providing a precedence of how
> RC> to circumvent Fedora's regulations/guidelines etc. to use Fedora as
> RC> means to distribute "mere content".
> Well, the interesting thing is that it's not this package which would
> provide the precedent. In fact, there are already several precedents in
> the distro, depending on which facet of the code vs. content issue you
> choose to examine.
I wasn't aware about this. Which packages are you referring to?
> RC> What to do about this package and about this issue in general?
> All I know is that it's terribly difficult for anyone to finely define
> the boundary of acceptability here.
> Program documentation is obviously
> OK. What about programming documentation? A Perl tutorial or Dive into
> Python? A generic book on Java programming? It's not too far from
> there to all of Project Gutenberg, and it hasn't really been that long
> since the issue of books was discussed to death on fedora-devel. Not to
> mention that even if you could somehow accurately lay out a boundary of
> acceptability, you'd then have to turn around and address the issue of
I for one, don't have much problems with such kind of content, as long
as its somehow directly related to Linux and/or Fedora.
> I have to admit, though, that pictures of your favorite city or
> amphibian or whatever just don't seem to me to have much point, even if
> they are wrapped in the necessary bits so that they work as a
This is what I feel is going to happen here - Which "content collection"
will be next?
We should try to contact the tourism offices, marketing agencies and
photographers all around the world and point them to the marketing
opportunities Fedora offers to them.
> But then we ship a bunch of "*-backgrounds*" packages and
> nobody seems to complain.
Well, may-be these packages should be revisited and re-reviewed?
> In the end, it isn't really up to FPC to make the policy on what's
> acceptable here,
Agreed. Finding a solution would be FESCO's and/or FPB's job.
> and if we're concerned about limiting the size of the
> distro then there's plenty of other cruft that you'd have to put up on
> the chopping block as well. I think FESCo is going to have to address
> this sooner or later, because it's not a big jump from some pictures of
> London to pictures of hot girls and who knows what else.
> For some reason this makes me wonder if we still patch out the "penis"
> configuration from the snake screensaver.
My concern isn't cultural issues/differences, mine is "mass" and
More information about the Fedora-packaging