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

Re: Summary of the 2008-04-08 Packaging Committee meeting



Rahul Sundaram wrote:

Same here. No conflicts existed until fedora packagers duplicated packages that already existed in well-known repositories and forked them instead of mirroring.

A cross distribution package repository is always going to be different from a distribution specific repository.

I don't see how that is relevant, given that the pre-existing repositories mostly/all have added version-specific instances for each fedora release.

Third party repositories follow their own licensing and packaging policies which are different even they target a specific distribution. This is what you fail to understand.

The only parts where this matters are those where there is incompatible duplication within the fedora repository. What I specifically fail to understand is why those packages that have been duplicated could not have been done in a way that the same contents would be acceptable in both repositories. Why, for example, couldn't the changes you say fedora needs as a dependency for openoffice be included in the jpackage repository for that fedora release and maintained as exact copies?

Could you share some amusing anecdotes about how the existing repositories refused to make these changed versions available when you tried to provide them to maintain complete compatibility?

Refer to list archives in the specific repositories or past discussions even in this list. Giving you "amusing anecdotes" isn't my job.

Those discussions left me with the impression that no actual effort was made to stay compatible with any other repository in spite of knowing that you don't and probably won't ever provide equivalent contents. I was hoping to hear otherwise.


--
  Les Mikesell
   lesmikesell gmail com


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