<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2013-10-30 22:01, Nicolas Chauvet
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CABr+WT=aiCA=CUDiR5FZw93wG6gZ=vm_yTi1qvno6Rn9iRVWwg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">2013/10/30 Alec Leamas <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:leamas.alec@gmail.com" target="_blank">leamas.alec@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On the wishlist and/or dead reviews we have some
re-distributable packages such as skype, spotify and
msttcore-fonts. After scratching my head over these I've
hacked some silly scripts , called them lpf (Local package
Factory) and made a package of it. It's on it's way into
fedora, currently in rawhide, f20 and f19
updates-testing.<br>
<br>
Using this package it should be simpler to package a thing
like spotify. The downloader lpf-spotfy-client is also on
it's way into fedora, lpf-skype needs a review. The
overall idea here is to have a common framework for these
packages simplifying for both users and packagers. Since
they by definition don't contain any upstream stuff they
go into fedora rather than rpmfusion, although they are on
the rpmfusion wishlist.<br>
<br>
I don't know if this is a good idea. Time will tell,<br>
</blockquote>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div>Hello Alec,<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>I don't get the point to have non-free software
"remotely within fedora". But if acceptable I guess it
could be possible to have rpmfusion-*free-release in ?
(the laters are freely redistributable).<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Thx for this initiative...<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
This outcome is kind of a surprise also for me; my gut feeling was
that these packages would end up in rpmfusion. However, the decision
is seemingly based on that lpf packages contains nothing from
upstream and nothing binary. What they generate is another issue,
but Spot's decision seems to be that doesn't really matter, it's
not on Fedora servers.<br>
<br>
I guess that theoretically one could have lpf packages in fedora
instead of what's in *free now. However, like I said to Simone, for
a user a re-distributable binary rpmfusion package is a better
solution than a lpf package which basically is kind of a source
distribution. lpf cannot really hide the fact that the package must
be built, it takes time and gives build deps. And, also again, lpf
is really designed for leaf packages, I don't see what happens if
something depends on a lpf package.<br>
<br>
Also, the lpf build process is just semi-automated on purpose. A
user need to be present to accept EULA conditions if required.<br>
<br>
Bottom line: lpf is designed as the last resort, when something
can't be hosted neither on fedora nor rpmfusion. I suggest that we
keep it this way. <br>
<br>
--alec<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>