For some reason I only got this mail today, so sorry for the late reply. On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 10:56:22AM -0600, Bernard Johnson wrote: > Rex Dieter wrote: > >Jeff Sheltren wrote: > > > >>I'm all for playing nice with other repos, but I still believe that > >>trying to work out all the technical and political issues is far more > >>trouble than it is worth. > >> > > > >Jeff, I think I know where you're coming from, but you simply can't have > >it both ways. One either plays nice or not. > > > >Frankly, if someone feels that they don't think it important to play > >nice (and do the right thing, imo), I would rather they not be involved > >in this project. > > > > > Maybe I'm wrong, but I felt that many people, including myself, thought > that this was not an EPEL issue but a FPC issue and should be pushed to > them instead. > > I mean really, EPEL is not "Joe's EPEL" it is "Fedora EPEL" and if > Fedora as a whole can't/won't adopt this proposal, why should it be our > burden? We are simply lower minions of the entire Fedora hierarchy > working specifically on EPEL. > > I think Axel's proposal still has merit, but the right thing is to throw > it to FPC. And nothing in the vote says that he can't. In fact, I hope > he does. No, I won't, because I don't think that the FPC is the political organ to make the decision to play nice or not, that's either EPEL's or any higher organ's decision, and most of the FPC thinks likewise, and doesn't want to get the old maid passed along. The FPC can help in telling you *how* to do it, or may tell you not to do it due to technical reasons. FWIW the FPC would look quite inclined to simply allow a disttag of .el5.epel or similar, but that's a moot point now. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpIyJalhcCqI.pgp
Description: PGP signature