https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3152
--- Comment #9 from Alec Leamas <[email protected]> 2014-01-27 07:24:20 CET --- (In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #6) > > I don't think using lpf solves any problem here. > > so , what is the problem that you are trying to solve ? > > > We have no non-redistributable > > upstream to handle so to speak. > > if dropbox is redistributable ? why we don't have it in rpmfusion repos like > others ? Sorry, too quick an answer from me. Dropbox is not re-distributble. The thing is just that the dropbox packages as provided by Dropbox are perfectly good to use as-is. What lpf is designed to do is to cope with is a situation like Spotify (no fedora rpm package) or flash-plugin (pporly packaged). In these cases, lpf can build a new package from what's available upstream. IMHO, this does not really apply to the dropbox case. Also note the maintenance situation: for a lpf package: each new upstream release must be reflected in the lpf package. This is actually often a lot to do and is not something you choose unless there is no other option. Yes, there is a performance penalty on using other repositories. However, a repo like dropbox really seldom changes, so it's more a quick check. In the big picture, I think it's the right thing to do, as long as Dropbox don't change their terms. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.
