[Bug 3152] Review request: dropbox-repo - 3rd-party repo package for Dropbox client
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3152
--- Comment #29 from Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com> 2014-01-27 23:57:42 CET ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Sorry, too quick an answer from me. Dropbox is not re-distributble.
The thing
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 scope with is a situation like
Spotify (no fedora rpm package) or flash-plugin (poorly 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.
"lpf can build a new package from what's available upstream", and can use
old
package from upstream and will be a little more direct no ?
I'm thinking about if lpf can update automatically the version that upstream
give to us ...
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
their terms.
Correct , so we have 2 points, one good and one bad, and I don't know which one
have more weight.
I do know, for example, adobe Acrobat reader repo, was very very slow ,
hopefully now I don't use it for more than two years. I have used okular .
Conclusion an extend lpf for this situation, for me, is the best choice. The
truth I don't have many time to investigate this and propose one solution.
--
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.