Hey guys, In handling Partner Repo packages, it is quite common to see vendors include their own copies of libraries within their own packages.  They do this for various reasons.  Parallels, for instance, does it for both QA and licensing purposes.  They include common libraries so that they only have to QA one build across many Linuxes. This, we try to recommend against and have them link against the system libraries instead, but we meet with varying success there.  However, they also include their own build of QT for licensing reasons, since they own a commercial license to QT and can't link against the GPLed version we provide. Another common reason vendors include copies of libraries, as is the case with the upcoming Alfresco and Zarafa packages, is because the ones we provide aren't new enough for them.  With the Open Source Ubuntu model, this isn't a concern, as the package will simply wait to be included in the upcoming dist with newer versions of the required libraries available.  However, for commercial vendors, it isn't that easy.  Most of our server-oriented vendors want to be in the artner Repo for LTS releases only.  So, with Zarafa, we are including some libraries in the package itself and for Alfresco, we are including a statically linked version of the pdf2swf application to meet their needs. Now that I have bored you sufficiently, my question really is: Is there a better way to meet their needs that also better follows our standard practices? Best regards, Brian