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

Re: Warren's rejection of cooperation with other repos

On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 03:48:28PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 13:09:54 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Warren Togami wrote:
> > > > I would assert that the alliances of 3rd party repositories
> > > > that have tried to form in the recent past are not sustainable
> > > > in the long term, for the same controversial reasons that
> > > > fedora.us rejected cooperation with those entities earlier
> > > > this year.

> While I'd like to stay out of this, because I've not been part of
> the pre-fedora.us discussions, I skimmed over the list archives when
> I subscribed to the list. May not count much, but it was -- and
> still is -- my impression that the maintainers of existing repos
> were not willing to compromise. That made it really difficult for
> fedora.us to start.

You have the wrong picture then. What compromises are you talking of?
Accepting fedora.us' non-comaptibility to their own repos?

> I find it very unfortunate to see that a lot of work is still duplicated.
> If someone asked me whether I could explain why there are still several
> independent repo maintainers who do their own rather closed thing, I would
> admit that I don't know.
> Fedora.us provides the infrastructure for collaborated packaging
> efforts. Still, the reason why some repo maintainers don't team up, is not
> the "explicit Epoch" or the package release versioning scheme. It's the
> refusal to adhere to Fedora.us package submission and QA policies, because
> it's easier to pipe out a new binary package instead of depending on other
> people to review the src.rpm, and possibly having to fix broken build
> requirements or unclean spec files before a package would be approved.

On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 05:59:31PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> As to why, I can only agree with Michael: people didn't/don't want
> to change the way they do things, have their packages go through
> rigorous (and slow) QA etc.

To answer to both of you: Personally I am fond of strict rules and
QA. I wouldn't mind a submission system similar to fedora's and hope
that the merger will polish it.

The problems are by far not technical. This would be a far too simple
explanation, and if I were the lazy type'a'guy, I wouldn't have wasted
so much time in getting the disttag's (and other specs) rolling.
Axel Thimm physik fu-berlin de

Attachment: pgp00073.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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