Referring to rpmfusion on Fedora project wiki?

[Axel Thimm]

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 10:53:00AM -0500, James Antill wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 23:04 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:32:23PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> > > The only criteria is this:
> > > 
> > > 1) The repository can not be involved in a claim of infringement
> > > (copyright, patent, trademark, license), nor can I or Red Hat be aware
> > > of any material which leads us to believe that infringement is likely.
> > > 2) The repository must not duplicate packages contained within the
> > > Fedora package repositories.
> > 
> > The second one isn't a legal issue, is it? And some in the Fedora
> > community do appreciate that some packages are offered in an extended
> > way adding build time dependencies that are not in Fedora itself for
> > various reasons (probably for similar reasons the third party repo
> > exist at the first place).
> > 
> > Wrt ATrpms while the tendency has been to remove as much as possible
> > overlap I think we are not 100% there to having a solely add-on repo.
> > 
> > What I want to say is that don't make policies that will only allow
> > the One and Only Repo to pass.
> 
>  Doing this does place a significant burden on Fedora though, esp. on
> upgrades (and esp. on distro. upgrades). It would be _much_ nicer if the
> override packages would live in a separate repo. from the purely add-on
> packages, this also significantly helps out the users who know they can
> enable repo XYZ because they won't be getting anything they didn't ask
> for explicitly.

Yes, that's the long term plan. It's already implemented for the RHEL5
bits, but Fedora is a different beast, as packages can suddenly appear
and make a pure add-on to an overlapping one. So it needs an automated
"separator" script. RHEL5 is much easier as the package set is only
altered every couple of months and doesn't really introduce that many
new packages even then.

It's on the TODO list (but not really at the top). Whether one
personally agrees on whether replacement packages are good or bad,
shifting the choice to the user is the best way to stop these
discussions in all parties' interest. :)
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20090225/ee5ecfac/attachment.sig>