OMG! I've started a war! - Was:Prelink success story :)

Panu Matilainen pmatilai at welho.com
Fri Feb 27 06:10:53 UTC 2004


On Fri, 2004-02-27 at 05:15, Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 02:24:42 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:27:32 +0000, Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote:
> 
> >> As for this fist fight between Micheal and Dag, let me just say that this
> >> is a real storm in a teacup.
> > 
> > Wonder what makes it look like a "fight"?
> > 
> >> I'm sure someone who works that hard without financial reward, surely
> >> cannot be described as someone who doesn't care.
> > 
> > You're extending the topic quite a bit now. "Doesn't care" as in "doesn't
> > care about fedora.us".
> 
> Well maybe I did stretch the context a bit, but even in the given context,
> I find it hard to believe that Dag doesn't care about fedora.us. If he
> didn't care, then he wouldn't keep questioning Fedora policy? Anyway,
> those are questions for him to answer himself.

I can't speak for Dag or anybody else but I'm reading between the lines
that he (and others) are interested in Fedora Extras which fedora.us is
supposed to become/be merged with, and wants to discuss these things so
that the official Fedora Extras can get rid of some of the issues that
have kept him and other individual repository maintainers away from
contributing to fedora.us.

So please lets not get into the painful and tiresome fedora.us vs
individual-repositories flamewars again but at least *try* to have a
decent discussion what Fedora Extras rules should be, since the current
fedora.us policies are more than obviously driving various people away
from it. Having the kind of people who can maintain dozens or hundreds
of packages themselves (like the individual repository maintainers now
do) on board instead of everybody ignoring and denying each others
existence would be an asset, not a bad thing.

And no, I don't expect Dag, Matthias, Axel & co to push all of their
packages into Fedora Extras no matter how things are arranged but
anything reducing the ridiculous re-re-re-repackaging of the same stuff
over and over again in 10 different repositories can be only a good
thing, the current situation is just wasting a lot of time and effort of
relatively scarce resources. Oh and before somebody points me to some of
my own old comments about existence of individual repositories: yes they
will continue to exist and there's nothing wrong with that, there's
always market for specialized bleeding-edge/whatever repositories. The
thing we should get rid of is the repackaging of same basic stuff (as in
"everybody uses") over and over again.

> 
> >> I don't feel threatened by the existence of DAG-RPMS any more than I do
> >> about Livna, in fact I'm glad of having more choice. That is, after all,
> >> what "community" is all about.
> > 
> > Imagine Dag would stop maintaining his hundreds of packages all of a
> > sudden (without any particular reason).
> 
> I think Livna would shut down without Dams, and if you and Warren went to
> the Bahamas for two weeks - fedora.us would be a very quiet place indeed.
> Let's not get too paranoid about what *might* happen, but lets concentrate
> on expanding what we *do* have.

Dunno about Livna but at least fedora.us does have other "build masters"
(whatever the exact term was escapes my mind right now) so things can
get published in absence of Michael, Dams and Michael. OTOH absence of
Michael would probably mean any QA work grinding to near halt - kudos to
him for the enormous effort he puts there.

Peace, love and lot of packages for all, eh? :)

	- Panu -





More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list