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

Re: Log from todays meeting

On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 17:50 +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:

> I guess that's because people care about allowing users to enable their 
> repository and incompatibility with someone else's repository is one way 
> of driving users away.

So true ...

I see two potentially shining lights we can look to help illuminate our
way, with the goal of helping our users:

1. Formalizing the third-party repo agreement (thanks Tim); and, yes, I
think we all agree that EPEL is another third-party repo.

2. From that, figure out a way to send people to other repos for
packages in a (somewhat) automated, culturally acceptable,
process-integrated, and legal-for-those-employed-by-US-corporations.

Fedora already is clear that, for example, we can refer people to
fedoraforum.org as "a place to get answers" but *not* with a direct URL
to how to install an illegal-in-the-US[1] package.

So, similarly, EPEL could:

* Make it easier to find compatible, other-repo packages

* Agree not to package something that is already in another repo,
instead referring to that repo and package in particular (cf.
fedoraforum.org and pointing at not-illegal solutions there)

* Similarly, where a package is *not* in EPEL because it is part of a
RHEL layered product, we could still point people to where those
packages are in other repos.  It may not be considered "kind" to Red
Hat, but that would be under the same bogus argument that people should
pretend CentOS doesn't exist.  The situation is going to arise where
EPEL doesn't have a package for this reason, and we cannot just shrug
our shoulders and point at a RHEL sale page.

* Work with all repos on improvements to rpmfind.net, to make it easier
for users to:
  - Find compatible packages
  - Identify when different repos are likely to conflict
  - Figure out the origin of a package they have installed
This would allow us to use a common troubleshooting methodology for all
of our users.  I understand what Dag is saying about removing steps
(i.e., having a repotag answers a common question without asking it),
and my idea here is the opposite -- add a common step for all users, but
one that answers multiple questions while troubleshooting.

* Help define and advertise a common "meaning" for each repo -- "This
one is steady, older packages; this one provides the latest possible
packages; etc."  Make it more obvious to users why they would choose one
repo over another for realistic reasons.

- Karsten

[1] I'll encourage people to use nomenclature like this, if it helps,
but I think we can agree that when Red Hat associates say "illegal" we
are referring to what Smooge said -- trying to keep from getting our
employer in hot water over US laws.

   Karsten Wade, 108 Editor       ^     Fedora Documentation Project 
 Sr. Developer Relations Mgr.     |  fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
   quaid.108.redhat.com           |          gpg key: AD0E0C41
////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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