Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488968 --- Comment #20 from Bill Nottingham <nott...@redhat.com> 2009-03-09 16:26:16 EDT --- Realistically, the license of the package would be the union of the licenses of the *icons* in the dependent packages, which is different than the union of the licenses of the packages themselves (and hopefully shorter). But that can't be sanely automated. (The fact that the license of the package ends up being this ludicrous should give some idea that this isn't really the best way to go about creating and deploying this...) (In reply to comment #11) > I prototyped this, but it wouldn't have scaled well, and there were > inconsolable differences with debian, e.g versions, icons and translations for > iceweasel. How so? The problem is, essentially, that you want this delivered and updated in an incrementable format, as the data's going to be (generally) only additive, and in small chunks. Doing that as packages is pretty wasteful. Ideally, you'd have a server-side program that does this for you - you ask it for the differences between what you have, and what is the latest, and it sends it to you. But since all we have is yum, which is defined to not have any server components aside from raw transfer of files, any sort of metadata that wants to be deployed gets shoehorned into either a static metadata chunk, or a package. Neither of which is really appropriate here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review