--- Comment #9 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com> 2014-01-27 07:24:20 CET ---
(In reply to comment #8)
(In reply to comment #6)
> I don't think using lpf solves any problem here.
so , what is the problem that you are trying to solve ?
> We have no non-redistributable
> upstream to handle so to speak.
if dropbox is redistributable ? why we don't have it in rpmfusion repos like
Sorry, too quick an answer from me. Dropbox is not re-distributble. The
is just that the dropbox packages as provided by Dropbox are perfectly good to
use as-is. What lpf is designed to do is to cope with is a situation like
Spotify (no fedora rpm package) or flash-plugin (pporly packaged). In these
cases, lpf can build a new package from what's available upstream. IMHO, this
does not really apply to the dropbox case.
Also note the maintenance situation: for a lpf package: each new upstream
release must be reflected in the lpf package. This is actually often a lot to
do and is not something you choose unless there is no other option.
Yes, there is a performance penalty on using other repositories. However, a
repo like dropbox really seldom changes, so it's more a quick check. In the big
picture, I think it's the right thing to do, as long as Dropbox don't change
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.