[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, 8 Nov 2003 19:07:14 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:

> 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.

Parting in blood is the wrong thing to do. Pushing alternative concepts
would be better. What is your list of disagreements with fedora.us'
policies? Have you posted a complete list before? Maybe you have a
pointer into the list archives?

With "not willing to compromise" I refer also to recent controversies,
such as Red Hat's move from redhat-release-9 to fedora-release-1. Asking
for a redhat-release-10 package or changing the disttag from "rh9" (Red
Hat Linux 9) to "rh9.1" (Fedora Core 1) are pretty much unfortunate
suggestions. "rhfc1" is a hack, too. Or your package release versioning
scheme: Why don't your packages start at release 0 like fedora.us'
packages do? So when a package is included in Fedora Core or Fedora
Extras, by default it would override the lower release package in the
3rd party repository.

And one request, please don't take these mails so personal. You always
sound as if you're constantly fed up and take everything as insult. ;)


Attachment: pgp00075.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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