On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:42:32 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 07:55:08PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 19:07:14 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > > 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? > > Others and I tried to in March/April. fedora.us' archives is full of > that and the reaction. It's a pain to find relevant postings in 1400 (or such) postings. So, a list does not exist? > > 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. > > No, it's not. I hope you will understand the issue and see that > Fernando delivered a magnificent solution compatible with rpm version > to Before Christ. Even one that I highly recommend for fedora.us. Why "rhfc1" and not "vfc1"? Why "rh" == "Red Hat" in the disttag when the distribution does not have the name "Red Hat Fedora Core" but just "Fedora Core"? > > 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. > > Look closer, How close should that be? To realize that you decide on a case by case basis whether to add the "0." prefix or not? That prefix should be used consistently, because you cannot assume whether a package will appear in Fedora Core (Extras, Alternatives, Development, Testing, whatsoever), e.g. apt-0.5.5cnc7-36.rh9.1.at.src.rpm -- Btw, Cc to so many lists is a bad idea, since rpm-list freshrpms net is not open for non-subscribers.
Description: PGP signature