What do we think of this?

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 27.03.2007 19:47, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Jesse Keating wrote:
>
> Surely it's not in the interests of the 3rd party repos to contribute to 
> Fedora breakage.  Right?
> 
> Is it *theroetically* possible to have a set of standards that unofficial 
> repos could follow to be less likely to break us?  And if so, what 
> prevents those standards from being created, and met?
> 
> Maybe these are stupid questions -- but I like putting stupid questions on 
> the record.

/me put his 3rd party repo hat on

Hopefully the 3rd party stuff should get better soon with a potential
merge of some 3rd party repos (which got already mentioned in a board
meeting afaik).

The plan for this merged repo is to use Fedora infrastructure as much as
possible. That includes repoclosure scripts and similar stuff, so it
that should help to break stuff less often. But this stuff must be
documented probably -- if it's to complicated to setup (like the
accounts systems, that is tied into a LDAP server, that makes it quite
hard to setup) then it's likely that 3rd party repo search for an
alternative, that maybe is not that good, but easier to set up.

Further: the need to be aware what updates gets pushed and especially
when (as discussed in this thread already) would be helpful, as 3rd
party repos then could prepare everything in time push their package
updates build against the new Fedora update at the same time as Fedora.
That would be helpful especially for things that break a lot of stuff --
kernel updates for example. At 24 hours or 48 hours heads-up "we plan to
push kernel update foo at Friday 10:00 UTC" would be good. And sure,
that's sometimes not possible (e.g. security updates), but often it is.

CU
thl