On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 06:05:05PM +0200, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Em Quinta-feira 23 Setembro 2010, às 17:25:53, Jared K. Smith escreveu:
> > As I read it, the latest "compliance" draft documentation says nothing
> > about connman, but if that's really going to be a solid requirement
> > for compliance, Fedora will most likely go the route of rebranding our
> > spin so as not to use the MeeGo trademarks or artwork. It's very
> > unfortunate that things couldn't have been spelled out in a more
> > transparent and self-consistent manner. It certainly would have saved
> > a lot of time and effort.
>
> The current compliance spec is trying to clarify this, to be as transparent
> as
> possible.
>
> The basic guideline is that you have to use the same packages as the MeeGo
> distribution (same names, same versions, differing only on patch-level and
> patches applied). You can recompile any packages.
>
> You cannot remove a core package, and that includes connman.
Wonderful, then I suggest that all "spins" that happen to contain some
MeeGo components, not even mention the MeeGo name at all anywhere.
Well, maybe not "anywhere", I still like this for the description of
Smeegol:
Smeegol, an openSUSE respin based on the spittle of MeeGo(tm).
Is that what people here really want to see happen? If so, great, but
realize exactly what you are asking for here, and how heavy-handed it
is.
thanks,
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
MeeGo-dev mailing list
MeeGo-dev@meego.com
http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
