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

Re: FC5 and Yum Plugins

On Thu, 2005-12-29 at 12:11 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On 12/29/05, Brian Long <brilong cisco com> wrote:
> > Nope.  I don't know that it's up to me or the Fedora project to contact
> > each third-party repo maintainer when Fedora implements a change.  I'm
> > asking Fedora to consider a change.
> And I'm telling you...since you used atrpms and freshrpms as the
> motivating example.. you should go out and contact those maintainers
> about how they feel about YOUR idea to make this default.  Shoving a
> new default into Core tool configs that is meant as a constraint on
> interaction with 3rd party repos is ill-advised without the input from
> the maintainers of those repos.  For you to suggest that the 3rd party
> maintainer's opinion doesn't hold significant weight shows an absolute
> lack of understanding of the history of this project's relationship
> with 3rd party maintainers.

There is no need to attack people personally in this discussion.  I
figured this discussion would be healthy, but I think you're crossing
the line.  I never said 3rd party maintainer's opinion didn't carry
weight; I said it's not the job of the Fedora development team to get
buy-in from every 3rd party maintainer before making a change.  There is
a big difference between the two.

> >If Fedora decides to implement that
> > change for the "protection" of their users and repos, the third party
> > repos would shoot themselves in the foot if they started scripting
> > around the protection!  IMHO, they would lose credibility.
> Considering that you are having problems with repos that already feel
> they have a good reason to overwrite Core packaging decisions... i
> think you making too many damned assumptions about what 3rd party
> maintainers think.  I don't care how many users think protectbase on
> by default is a good idea. If 90% of the users are like you and trying
> to protect themselves against atrpm overwrites.. you better make damn
> sure that atrpms is going to respect protectbase's default status.  We
> aren't solving any problems by turning this on by default unless the
> 3rd party maintainers that most users have problems with agree to
> respect the config.  As an mythtv atrpms package user, i would think
> you would want to make sure Axel was behind this idea. In fact I say
> any user of mythtv packages from atrpms loses credibility in this
> discussion if they do not seek out Axel's opinion on that matter. The
> last thing you want as a user of any atrpms packages is MORE
> hostibility between this project and atrpms... because its just going
> to end up making it more difficult for you as the user.

Why are you cussing?  Does it make you feel you get your point across?

I'm not trying to make assumptions about the 3rd party maintainers.  I'm
relying on the folks familiar with Fedora development to flush out my
idea, riddle it with holes, flush it down the toilet or accept it.  It's
just a discussion topic, nothing meant to piss people off or start a
flame war.  Jeez!  :-)


       Brian Long                      |         |           |
       IT Data Center Systems          |       .|||.       .|||.
       Cisco Linux Developer           |   ..:|||||||:...:|||||||:..
       Phone: (919) 392-7363           |   C i s c o   S y s t e m s

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