Re: openssl-freeworld discussion
2012/7/3 Ismael Olea <ismael(a)olea.org>:
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think you want to obsolete/provide rather than conflict/provide.
> Which is forbidden by RPM Fusion policy.
>
> This topic was raised few weeks ago:
>
> https://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-developers/2012-June/0127...
Obviously I miss this thread.
From
https://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-developers/2012-June/0127...
Kevin Kofler said:
> So I stand by it: The only practical way to ship an openssl-freeworld is
> such that it overrides the Fedora openssl.
The Kevin point is to goes the
freetype-freeworld way without minding
the specific case of such core component as openssl and others.
None has promoted to replace the fedora package.
My point is that even sometime it turn out that the freetype-freeword
package got broken for some reason.
(I guess one of the reason is that others components using freetype
are using rpath which fedora policy forbids but does not hunt).
So the result is a sometime broken rendering. I can leave without
freetype-freeworld, but not with a non-working openssl/gnutls/others.
There is no decision to be made before having a package actually tested.
So that's mean a review to be made with package built outside of the
infra and provided in some other place, so that RPM Fusion developers
can actually make any decision based on one solution or another that
can be considered as fully working.
Nicolas (kwizart)