RPM submission procedure

[Michael Schwendt]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 09:10:52 -0500, Alan Cox wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:48:50AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > Have you ever checked the conflicts you would encounter mixing
> > > fedora.us and <name a big repo here>?
> > 
> > Fedora.us is neither designed as being mixable nor is it advertized as
> > being mixable.
> 
> I would certainly prefer it was designed to make it easy for other people
> to keep their archive sets compatible. FC1 core doesn't advertise 5 year
> binary compatibility - and doesn't have it, but nobody is proposing to
> completely ignore compatibility and breaking third party repository code.

Sounds as if you may have misunderstood my comment. It *is* easy for other
people to keep their own repositories compatible with fedora.us, but not
vice versa. For instance, you are incompatible with fedora.us as soon as
you give your packages names which differ from fedora.us package naming
guidelines and when that results in failed/unresolvable dependencies or
unsupported upgrade paths. Similarly, you are incompatible if you include
files in packages where they conflict with fundamental packages from
fedora.us. It's not the job of fedora.us to allow for such mixing of
repositories. By publishing guidelines and policies fedora.us (and the
Fedora Project will have to do that, too) lay the groundwork for 3rd party
repositories to play well with it. If, however, you ask for working around
potential clashes with independent repositories, well, who will do the
extra testing of mixed repositories? I don't see anyone who would be
willing to test whether an application package from fedora.us is satisfied
with dependencies taken from a 3rd party repository and vice versa.  It's
not fedora.us' job to adapt to a multitude of existing independent
packagers, their usually undocumented packaging styles and their packages.

--