But disregarding that, it neatly doesn't explain what it wants a timeline for, and it's not even particularly clear from context. The conclusion appears to be "#action Without a timeline, or some other commitment from upstream we can't do much (too big to just ignore)." For a start, why is that an action? That's not an action, it's a #agreed or #info. The second FPC log seems to involve exactly no actual discussion of copylib status, a lot of (so far as I can see, unjustified) slagging off of upstream, and a worrying lack of understanding of what the code is even for ("what's a RAW file?") So far as I can understand it, FPC's position here seems to be "we know better than the upstream maintainer how he intends his own code to be used, and we believe it will be better for everyone in the long run if Fedora builds Rawspeed as something it was never intended to be". There is a quote from the upstream author in the github issue where he explicitly states "2) There is no separate libraries, source code is intended to be supplied in source/compiled into releases of programs using it." However, the says exactly nothing about either of these things being indicators of copylib status. In the original log it seems to be decided that rawspeed can't possibly be a copylib because it's "too big" and/or "too active":ġ6:22:54 so lol on that being a copylib]ġ6:32:45 #action Rawspeed is way too big/active to be a copylib.
Having just tried to catch up with this after hearing mizmo talk about it, I have to say I find the reasoning here incoherent or difficult to follow.
0 kommentar(er)
