And of course I would be happy to help with reviewsĪnd thanks again to the mock developers, its design is so much better
The packaging does nothingįancy, there are quirks here and there but overall it was rather easy Help for the reviews and co-maintainership. I hope I CC'd everyone that should get this heads up, and hope to find Helpful for non-savvy users that this JustWorks(tm), but apt-rpm isĭead upstream and it shouldn't be advertised as apt. They should run "apt-get install foo" somewhere on the web it's The current apt package should be renamed to apt-rpm, I will look up Two of those packages should be runtime dependencies of debhelper. Something goes wrong outside of the C realm that would be helpful. The mailing list address) but bugzilla replied kindly:Īpt is a mix of C, Perl and C++ code, so I would be reassured if IĬould have a C++ co-maintainer too. I tried to CC perl-sig as per the guidelines (also tried with Three of those packages are heavy on Perl code, and I'm not a Perl In order to successfully build debs on Fedora I needed 4 packages that Having to deal with needless extra hoops. It finally got enough on my nerves to locally build the things I needed andĪfter a month I have already amortized my efforts with the time I save not Until recently my workflow was quite painful because I needed extra stepsīetween git checkout and git push that involves a VM, because what we I'm calling this initiative fedpkg: Fedora Embraces DPKG.Ī bit of background here: I build both RPMs and DEBs for $DAYJOB and I know how important RPM is to the Fedora Project, but it breaksĮverything downstream and we'd be better off using DPKG as we should Under that license may be included in Fedora (including EPEL and COPRs). We have updated our "Bad License" list to include SSPLv1. It is also worth nothing that while there is a draft for a "v2" of the SSPL:ī) It is not in use anywhere at this time (as far as we know).Ĭ) The intent of the v2 draft text is not changed from the v1 license To consider the SSPL to be "Free" or "Open Source"Ĭauses that shadow to be cast across all other licenses in the FOSSĮcosystem, even though none of them carry that risk. It is the belief of Fedora that the SSPL is intentionally crafted to beĪggressively discriminatory towards a specific class of users.Īdditionally, it seems clear that the intent of the license author is toĬause Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt towards commercial users of software V1 (SSPL) is not a Free Software License. After review, Fedora has determined that the Server Side Public License
0 kommentar(er)
