RPM submission procedure

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de
Thu Jan 8 02:39:06 UTC 2004


On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 03:01:01AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 00:34:22 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> 
> > We believe in diversity and while we all joined fedora.us a year ago,
> 
> Joining a mailing-list is not equal to joining fedora.us.

No, but having crafted parts of fedora.us' specs and trying to keep it
on the Right Track (TM) is.

> However, the list archives of fedora-devel at fedora.us between November 2002
> and April 2003 contain many political discussions and no real signs of
> the packagers wanting to merge into an open community project. 

You wear funny glasses. The "political discussions" were about
creating specifications that either serve a single repo only or more
(both then existing and future repos). And then people got upset with

o a call to clone freshrpms instead of extending it.
o fedora.us decisions being made by a single person after consulting
  two pals on irc.
o any input about interrepository issues bouncing off on hostility or
  ignorance.

Indeed fedora.us' leadership explicitly states that it has rejected
cooperation back then as is continuing to still do so, as it believes
it to be the right thing to do.

So what signs exactly were you expecting? Why should someone who's
work and input is being rejected want to merge with fedora.us?

> The archives are pretty tiresome to read with all the debates about making
> fedora.us adapt existing packaging practise instead of working on improved
> guidelines for a single source of extra packages (well, except for
> packages with patenting and licencing issues).

Now that's utter crap.

> In reality, what those individual repository maintainers want is total
> control about their own packages and, of course, continueing to run their
> own branded repositories with fame and glory in mind.

O.K., you try to reach for below the belt, I won't bite.

> Official Fedora Extras gives the chance to redo some of the pre fedora.us
> discussions. And yet again, some of the individual repo maintainers showed
> interest only in repository inter-operability or avoiding modification to
> their packages inflicted by changes in Fedora Core, e.g. /etc/redhat-release
> detection or package release distribution tags.

Please explain. Package disttags have been sorted out after a very
long staving thread. So what are you referring at?

> > believing the project would serve as a coordinating entity,
> 
> With individual repository maintainers not being willing to compromise
> that has turned out to become impossible or *very* time-consuming.

How can something that has not even been tried become *very*
time-consuming? Are you applying revision to history?

> While fedora-devel at fedora.us would still be discussing subtleties,
> the individual repo maintainers would continue to pipe out packages
> without prior community reviews and approvals.

You are confusing things here. The long start of fedora.us was due to
discussing specs, and interrepository qualification was never
accepted. This resulted in people not liking fedora.us' emerging
policies and their comments, but not in a delay of the specs. I
remember myself even encouraging to stop academia and start packaging,
so you are obviously blaming the wrong people.

> > Anyway the current setup of heretic repos is working quite
> > well. Become a heretic yourself today! ;)
> 
> Except for package conflicts which the ordinary user encounters easily
> when he tries to mix freshrpms and ATrpms.

I wonder how I managed to grow my repository from day one compatible
with freshrpms then, and how it works that every ATrpms user has
another 5-11 other repositories active including freshrpms? I must
have probably be dreaming that this is happening.

Have you ever checked the conflicts you would encounter mixing
fedora.us and <name a big repo here>? Ever read the threats about the
biggest repository mixing problem being the Epoch: 0 problem induced
by fedora.us in March/April?

Yes, the warning about not mixing fedora.us with other repos had
finaly become valid, fedora.us created the mixing nightmare it was
trying to solve ...
-- 
Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20040108/72055288/attachment.sig>


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list