Fedora Extras is extra

[Axel Thimm]

On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 10:11:57AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:44:26 -1000, Chris Stark wrote:
> > probably the appropraite thing to do). But undermining other repos by 
> > using conflicting naming systems IS "Microsoft-ish" (and thus utterly 
> > reprehensible) and they should be ashamed of themselves.
> 
> Where is this conflicting naming scheme? Fedora.us' package naming
> guidelines are documented for a very long time, unchanged. They are
> the result of long mailing-list dicussions. What about the 3rd party
> repositories?

You yourself wrote a mail only a few weeks before, where you even
layed out the timescale of the conflicting naming scheme.

Michael's anmesia
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2004-November/msg00814.html

(One of) Axel's pleas for interrepo versioning scheme
http://www.fedora.us/pipermail/fedora-devel/2003-February/000216.html
| IMHO one should very carefully reconsider naming
| conventions. Instead of trying to overcome version/release ordering
| scheme problems by obfuscating them, one should try to specify a
| versioning scheme, that will allow interoperation of repositories.

One of the rejections:
http://www.fedora.us/pipermail/fedora-devel/2003-March/000516.html
| > A repository identification string in the middle of a release tag
| > makes it also very hard to have repository coordination (no ... not
| > that sword again ... ;)
| 
| I am still against repository coordination because that implies more
| delay in repository building.  I sincerely believe that after we
| have our specifications done, several packagers can quickly convert
| all repositories into Fedora and that would be the end of it.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20041129/05cdc37c/attachment-0002.sig>