[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: status of forked zlibs in rsync and zsync



On 09/29/2009 09:24 AM, James Antill wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 08:07 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> On 09/29/2009 05:00 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> On 09/29/2009 05:14 PM, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote:
>>>
>>>> Seems that violations of the guidelines are not so important like the
>>>> violation of the Trademark (The hunting of fedora related sites, like
>>>> blogs or forums with adhesions contracts)...  Are the project related
>>>> activities are out of balance?
>>>
>>> They are called guidelines and there are always exceptions. Bundling a
>>> library is not ideal but removing rsync would be a extreme step. I don't
>>> think the situation warrants that. Let's not loose perspective here.
>>>
>> So in this case, I think the following things could be said:
>>
>> * Removing rsync is not an option because of how widely it is used.
> 
>  Sure.
> 
>> * Bundling libraries in zsync is not an option
> 
>  Why is it not? Because you don't use it? Because f-i doesn't currently
> use it? (remember this thread started because the Fedora QA group wants
> to use it).
>
>  Maybe we should split the packaging guidelines into ones everyone has
> to follow and ones that are really anal and only unpopular packages have
> to follow.
> 
No -- the rest of my bullets outline how to bring rsync into compliance
with the Guidelines.  All packages need to follow all MUST items unless
there is an exception clause and an exception has been granted.  rsync
doesn't get a get of jail free card because it is popular.  It gets a
"We must make one of these fixes a priority" because it is important.

-Toshio

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]