https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3152
--- Comment #29 from Sérgio Basto <ser...@serjux.com> 2014-01-27 23:57:42 CET --- (In reply to comment #9) > 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 scope with is a situation like > Spotify (no fedora rpm package) or flash-plugin (poorly 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. "lpf can build a new package from what's available upstream", and can use old package from upstream and will be a little more direct no ? I'm thinking about if lpf can update automatically the version that upstream give to us ... > 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. Correct , so we have 2 points, one good and one bad, and I don't know which one have more weight. I do know, for example, adobe Acrobat reader repo, was very very slow , hopefully now I don't use it for more than two years. I have used okular . Conclusion an extend lpf for this situation, for me, is the best choice. The truth I don't have many time to investigate this and propose one solution. -- 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.