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

Re: Split-off package config from release note packages

On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 06:03:15PM -0600, Patrick Barnes wrote:
> On Friday 31 March 2006 11:34, Demond James <dnjinc wowway com> wrote:
> > Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > But then hell breaks loose and people accuse JoeBob of forking
> > > fedora, when all he wanted to do is either provide decent
> > > mirrors (local or not) for his users or additional repos. Having
> > > to replace fedora-release to do that results in for example:
> > >
> > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JohnMahowald/ATrpmsWarning
> >
> > What would help stop the propaganda Axel is descriptions of the
> > changes that were made to these core packages.  As it stands now I
> > do not want to replace the core packages with your packages simply
> > because I don't now what changes you made.  Let me decided if I
> > want that added feature.  Other than that great job and great
> > repo.  Thank you!
> >
> When you start changing packages from Core, it really is a fork by
> definition.  Replacing Core packages is not and will never be
> considered a good or safe practice, and will never be supported by
> the Fedora Project.  [...]

Oh, no, not that thread again. Just to cut a long story short, please
show me one 3rd party repo that doesn't have a package
replaced. You'll find in the archives, that not only ATrpms, but
freshrpms, dag, livna, kde-redhat (by definition), planetccrma,
newrpms, <your repo here> have done so. So by your's and John's
definition these repos should all be called forks of fedora.

> The fedora-release package is the single package that defines the
> installed release.  Any file that is unique and critical to a
> particular release is not out of place in that package.  The
> repository configurations are arguably release-agnostic, and could
> be reasonably split into a different package, but only for reasons
> of maintainability.

> If you want to change the existing files, tell users and give them
> the option.  If you want to add new repositories, provide a separate
> package.

It's great that we agree, as this is exactly the mode ATrpms is
working ...

My personal view: ATrpms is trying to add value to fedora (and RHEL),
and I wonder why there have to be so many alienations towards
ATrpms. People of the fedora community complain about market loss to
Ubuntu due to non-coherent community of fedora and semi-official
statements like the one in the wiki just divide the fedora community
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Attachment: pgpxVz2a1WA3v.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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