Le sam 08/11/2003 à 16:59, Panu Matilainen a écrit : > On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > > On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Warren Togami wrote: > > > > I would assert that the alliances of 3rd party repositories that > > > > have tried to form in the recent past are not sustainable in the > > > > long term, for the same controversial reasons that fedora.us > > > > rejected cooperation with those entities earlier this year. > > > > I am sorry to hear that you still think you were doing the Right > > Thing (TM). > > > > When Fedora (US) was being formed it attracted many repo maintainers > > like freshrpms, newrpms, dag and many others including myself. They > > hoped for a coordination institution within fedora, which should > > provide > > > > o interrepository specifications (note "inter"!!!) > > Oh but that was NEVER the idea behind fedora.us. The idea was to create a > repository run by community of packagers, not a community of repositories > run by individuals. Why do you need 1000 different repositories if you can > stick the packages into one? An individual can have his own repo as a staging/testing area (a lot of RH maintainers work like this), and there are repositories that will *never* merge with fedora because they target more than one distribution (ximian, jpackage...). Plus you can have several distros feeding from a same core repository (I certainly hope aurora and yellowdog will use fedora as source too) Ah, and there are licensing issues too... Even the kernel uses a multi-tree setup, and it's a *lot* more focused than your average distribution. So if you want an healthy ecosystem you need to recognise you're not alone. Never will be. I don't give a damn about splendid isolation. I want to be able to try Mdk bits, share stuff with RHEL, use experimental rpms, etc If I thought otherwise I'd be using Debian now. Cheers, -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message=?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e=2E?=