--- Comment #27 from Rob Janes <janes.rob(a)gmail.com> 2013-05-27 05:37:08 CEST ---
Ok, re consensus - i reviewed the above comments, and i don't see any
Rex Dieter and Thorsten Leemhuis say it can go in if guidelines are met.
Kevin Kofler seemed to have the most to dispute, but the core of his dispute
seems to be that the EULA must be shown, and that the rpm must not be
interactive. I disputed that the EULA needed to be shown, but he didn't seem
to want to go past that.
Oh - the other issue Kevin Kofler had was that the rpm installed files that
were not managed by the rpm system. That was correct at the time, but I fixed
that. I put stub files in the rpm with the same names as the font files.
They're installed by the rpm, and then overwritten with the correct versions by
I didn't see anybody having an issue with an rpm that installed stuff by
downloading it. The problem appeared to be in the details, not in the overall
I've reviewed the rpmfusion guidelines and haven't seen where I've violated
guidelines. Of course, there is Kevin Kofler's claim that the violation was
self evident and obvious, and therefore did not need to be stated. So, perhaps
I've missed the thing that was so obvious (at least to Kevin Kofler) that it
wasn't written in to the guidelines.
personally, i'm of the opinion that if it isn't written in to the guidelines,
then it's not a guideline. However, I believe he was pointing to the long spec
script when he made that claim, and regardless of whether it was a guideline
issue or not, it did seem to be a reasonable concern, especially since the
debian and ubuntu versions addressed this too, and so I did re-write the spec
to move the code to a shell script and thus shortened the spec considerably.
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.