On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 14:07:07 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
I'm really not trying to be difficult. I think one can reasonably
see how
what you're saying doesn't necessarily follow from what's written. The
section on MP3 should be changed to make this more clear, to make things
easier for both packagers and reviewers.
Well, I even quoted it for you.
[...] MP3 is heavily patented [...] Some upstream packages include patents
or trademarks that we are not allowed to ship even as source code. [...]
IMO, it's leading nowhere if you're reading inbetween the lines. I fail
to see why we would ship something "heavily patented".
> > but then I came across this reviewed, accepted package
which has been in
> > Fedora for three and a half years, so I wanted to check if that was a
> > mistake or if my attitude had been over-zealous.
> Doing reviews isn't easy.
I didn't mean to imply that it was, or either ineptitude or maliciousness.
Just lack of clarity.
Would that help? One reviewer would skim over the contents of a large
source code archive, another would not. One reviewer would miss a
subfolder deep in the tree even with "MP3" in its name, another one
would notice it but not realize that it's an implementation of a codec
and not just some frame/ID3 parsing or similar. More fun you'd get if
it the source contains problematic code other than MP3. ;)
--
Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.5.4-2.fc17.x86_64
loadavg: 0.33 0.20 0.20