On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 12:06:51PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 06.03.2007 11:48, Axel Thimm wrote: > >[...] > >No special solutions, please, I agree - ban fedora-usermgmt from EPEL. > > "ban fedora-usermgmt from EPEL" for me is a special EPEL solution, as it > differs from the Fedora solution. > > That way lie dragons! > > I'd like to avoid them -- every single rule around packaging that is > different between Fedora and EPEL will make life harder for users and > packagers that are active in both camps, as they have to keep different > rule sets in mind. I'd like to avoid that as much as possible. > > >>>as no one really seems to be interested (or are you volunteering to > >>>take the lead). > >>Then I'd say the problem can't be that big. > >That's a joke, right? > > Unsure. Yes, in parts, no in other parts -- as Rex iirc said: there > seems to be a lot FUD about "fedora-usermgmt" around. > > If the problem if so big that you want to get is solved then please go > and solve it in Fedora (hey, you are in the Packaging Committee!), and > it will be solved for EPEL that way, too. > > Taking a EPEL-shortcut would IMHO be plain wrong. Ok, how about we simply vote on that and let it R.I.P.? -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp6rYGCz5xFD.pgp
Description: PGP signature