On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Sven Langkamp wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 5:25 PM, todd rme wrote:
>> So you are saying Linux distributions cannot even fix compilation
>> errors without getting approval from Calligra devs? I cannot see any
>> benefit to this particular policy, it will rea
Hi,
Regarding quality, between not doing anything and trying our best,
there's a lot of possibilities.
I also think that assuming we have good intentions can help too.
I see the policy as tagging the releases with our sign, and our names.
Taking some kind of responsibility (not as in law).
The sig
larification of what is already expressed in the
> "based on
> > calligra" section.
> >
> > == Binary distribution ==
> > Use of the calligra name for binary distribution is allowed for unpatched
> > version without any restriction.
> >
> >
; been thinking about this for a while, but discussion today with FC people
> reminded me that just expressing preference does not work with distributions).
>
> In my view it is a clarification of what is already expressed in the "based on
> calligra" section.
>
> == B
