Warren's rejection of cooperation with other repos

[Michael Schwendt]

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 at freshrpms.net is
not open for non-subscribers.
-------------- 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-devel-list/attachments/20031108/f976daa6/attachment.sig>