Summary of the 2008-04-08 Packaging Committee meeting

[Les Mikesell]

Callum Lerwick wrote:
>  
> 
>     The only parts where this matters are those where there is
>     incompatible duplication within the fedora repository.  What I
>     specifically fail to understand is why those packages that have been
>     duplicated could not have been done in a way that the same contents
>     would be acceptable in both repositories.  Why, for example,
>     couldn't the changes you say fedora needs as a dependency for
>     openoffice be included in the jpackage repository for that fedora
>     release and maintained as exact copies?
> 
> 
> Overlapping repos are fundamentally broken, period.

Then why create overlap?

> We've had long 
> flamewars in the past about how ATrpms freely replaces Fedora packages 
> making an unsupportable mess.

I think ATrpms pre-dates fedora. Freshrpms certainly did.  Do you think 
you can retroactively trademark the package names or something?

 > Why are we allowing JPackage to pull the
> same crap?
> 
> Fedora must not make any consessions to allowing JPackage to maintain 
> overlapping packages in their repos. Because it is brain damaged. Period.
> 
> This goes for all external repos, not just JPackage.

Allow?  What kind of control do you think you have over other repos that 
were providing packages before fedora existed or the earlier versions of 
RedHat even had public update repositories?  Your choice is to cooperate 
or not.  The impression I got from the earlier discussions was that you 
refused the compromises that would have made consolidating the 
repositories acceptable, forked some of the packages from their 
pre-existing versions and thus made it next to impossible for users to 
get the rest of the content which, for various reasons, you didn't 
include.  Maybe you see this some other way?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com