On Wednesday, 19 November 2008 at 01:30, Dejan Lekic wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <
>
dominik@greysector.net> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 16:12, Dejan Lekic wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Peter Lemenkov <
lemenkov@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Why you decided to push rpms into RPMFusion instead of Fedora/EPEL?
> > >
> > > frankly I did not think they would go into the main repository, at least
> > > not yet.
> >
> > Why not? Are there some patent or other legal issues involved? You can
> > always ask on fedora-legal-list to verify.
> >
> > Regards,
> > R.
> >
> > PS. Please do not top-reply.
>
> Well, I prefer using newsgroups instead, and this kind of reply is not my
> cup of tea to be honest, but OK, I wll reply at the bottom. :)
That's a step forward. Now you only need to learn not to mess up quoting
and trim signatures and irrelevant parts of previous messages and you'll
be all set.
> No, there is not a single issue here, it is just me not willing to spend
> time reading TWO mailing lists, TWO bugzillas, TWO repositories, etc. I
> would much rather prefer working on one place (I hope so) - RPMForge.
RPMForge is something different from RPMFusion, so I'm not sure what two
mailing lists, bugzillas and repositories you are talking about.
> If someone wish later to put these RPMs into Fedora, I will not mind,
> but that person will have to maintain it.
Well, as has been said in this thread: we're not an alternative to Fedora,
we only complement it. If something can go into Fedora, we don't carry it.
In fact, we've successfully managed to get several packages previously in
RPMFusion into Fedora after legal issues were resolved.
Regards,
R.
--