[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: ATrpms and FC5/RHEL5

Jarod Wilson wrote:

On Monday 02 January 2006 21:33, Jeff Pitman wrote:
On 1/3/06, Jarod Wilson <jarod wilsonet com> wrote:
On Monday 02 January 2006 18:12, Warren Togami wrote:
If you have concerns about individual packages, please file bugs in Red
Hat Bugzilla.  Changes can be made to individual Core/Extras packages
are usually general bug fixes and enhancements.  It is wrong to expect
Fedora to make special concessions only to work around problems
introduced by 3rd parties.  If it is the right thing to do in general
cases, then it is proper to make changes to Core/Extras.
I'm not talking so much about problems introduced by 3rd-parties as I am
about problems/deficiencies uncovered by 3rd-parties, i.e., fixing
packages in Core in a timely fashion to eliminate the need of 3rd-party
packagers to replace Core components.
Also, it's good to have allies on the inside.

Very true. Most 3rd-party repos don't, apparently.

See jpackage FAQ about "I tried to install foo on Fedora Core 2, but got lots of error
messages and/or things don't work": http://www.jpackage.org/faq.php

Note the line:

"""This issue should be fixed in Fedora Core 3, thanks to Red Hat's
involvement in JPackage."""

So the anti-3rd-party repository stance isn't unilaterally applied against all 3rd-party repos, I take it?

There is no anti 3 party repository stance in the sense that there is nothing in the formal Fedora repositories working actively against them. If there are bugs in any of the packages within core they should fixed regardless of the 3rd party repositories which may have helped uncovered the problem. In other words they are just routine bugs addressed in bugzilla. No big board of (anti) cooperation required.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]