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

Re: Unite Non-free repos (Was: Re: Non-free Extras?)



2006/2/22, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora leemhuis info>:
> Am Mittwoch, den 22.02.2006, 14:56 -0500 schrieb Eric Mesa:
> >[...]
> > The reason for my starting the thread was the fact that there are a
> > myriad of repos out there for those of us who need (or "need" -
> > depending on your point of view) access to non-free software.  They
> > overlap in a lot of places, but some have one app that others don't.
>
> That's true.
>
> > However, mixing repos who don't work together can have bad results.
>
> Yep.
>
> > So I was hoping we could unite them in,
>
> Well, "unite them" sounds like a good plan -- the current situation
> creates a lot of confusing. Some users wandered off to Ubuntu due to
> that. But there are some things that you can't unite. So it probably
> needs to be a "unite what can be united".
>
> At least freshrpms and livna are close together regarding politics and
> packages -- both do not replace or update packages from Core or Extras
> (normally). Maybe it's time to forget all the old flamewars that
> happened years ago and merge the two. Anvil, thias, what's your opinion?
> I'm, willing to act as middle man for "merging discussions" if those two
> accept me (Disclaimer: I contribute to livna, but I was not involved in
> the flamewars in the pre-fedora.us days -- only some of those that
> happened later).
>
> newrpms: che has a package under review from extras. He also does not
> replace things from extras or livna normally. I'm optimistic that we
> could get him involved in merge plans, too.
>
> atrpms and dag/dries/rpmforge: Depends on them. They currently replace
> packages from Core and Extras -- that's necessary to achieve some things
> they do (things Extras and Livna don't do), but a lot of people don't
> like that. But there is no reason why they can't joins a merged
> "Non-Free-Repo" (Let's call it "Repo-Which-Must-Not-Be-Named") and
> continue the other stuff that does not harmonizes separately. But that's
> probably more work for them with a small gain for them. Correct me if
> I'm wrong.
>
> I didn't follow the other repos to closely -- maybe someone else can
> comment on those?
>
> >say, the Fedora-non-free and
> > Fedora-tricky-licensing repos so that they could work together and
> > maintain package consistency, etc.
>
> We probably can't do the above (and shouldn't do that) under the name
> "Fedora". Proprietary software (like the drivers from ati and nvidia)
> and "Patent Encumbered" software is a no go for Fedora afaics.
>
> But yes, maybe we could to a "Fedora Extras Non-Free" for things like
> - the Firmware for ipw2100 and ipw2200
> - stuff like povray -- open-source, but not "free" (see
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-February/msg00191.html
> for details)
>
> CU
> thl
> --
> Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora leemhuis info>
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>

well id be happy if just planetccrma would be slowly merged into
extras... the main blocker seems to be the realtime kernel module as
far as i can see.

actually from the other repos only a few packages are missing that
could be contributed to extras and youd be nearly there. besides some
kernel modules atrpms provides e.g.

regards,
rudolf kastl


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