[Fedora-packaging] code vs. content
rc040203 at freenet.de
Sat Nov 21 10:43:32 UTC 2009
On 11/21/2009 10:42 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le samedi 21 novembre 2009 à 04:31 +0100, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :
>> On 11/20/2009 01:22 PM, Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
>>> 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.
> Well I don't, unless you decide to evaluate the "purpose" of every
> binary in Fedora. The "purpose" of "content" is that someone found it
> useful enough to jump through the hoops of Fedora packager sponsorship
> and Fedora review.
You will always find somebody who finds any arbitrary content useful for
> When you see the stuff that ends in the repo nowadays I don't see why
> "non-code" packagers should be guettoized just because they're not
> dealing with exalted code such as an nth broken music player, MUA,
> <insert random crap we package here>.
We are talking about _mere content_ packages, here, ie. strictly
optional "eye/ear" candy packages, things like background package of
"your favorite city", "your child", "your pet", "your car/house/boat", ...
In this case, we are talking about somebody having submitted pictures of
London as background images ...
> The "code" vs "content" terminology is completely broken. No one really
> defined what "code" was.
Well, we had discussed this 100s of times before, however the topic is
More information about the Fedora-packaging