Le 20 mai 2012 23:24, "Kevin Kofler" <kevin.kofler@chello.at> a écrit :

Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> But in this case I wonder why not to simply override the no
> replacement policy ? At least a good reason would need to be provided
> for still obeying this policy.

Users in countries which obey software patents might not want their patent-
compliant package silently replaced by a patent-encumbered one.

It doens't hold, RPM Fusion free is fully made of patent encumbered components by design.
Which make me wonder if we really need to requires the rpmfusion-free-release from the rpmfusion-nonfree-release from patent point of view.

My point is that people using mp3 enabled qtractor from current RPM Fusion shouldn't received a disabled package either.

Nicolas (kwizart)