ATrpms and FC5/RHEL5

Jeff Pitman jeff.pitman at
Tue Jan 3 02:23:12 UTC 2006

On 1/3/06, Jarod Wilson <jarod at> wrote:
> If there's a fix or functionality addition to a core package needed for
> another package maintained by a 3rd-party, why not push them into the core
> versions? Then people who want software out of the 3rd-party repo but don't
> want core packages replaced get to have their cake and eat it too, and
> 3rd-party repositories don't get bashed as much. Everybody wins, no?

I think what Warren is saying is that this channel already exists: in
the form of Bugzilla. It would be at the discretion of each package
maintainer to fold any improvements or patches into Core. So, there
really doesn't need to be any explicit effort to bridge the two.

For example, I have submitted issues that were fixed in Core based on
work that I was doing on my repo. This is due to the fact that my repo
replaces Python well before Core does and so I can see some potential
problems a priori Core integration.

But, that's not to say it doesn't get frustrating. I mean:

That bug is a good example. It's a PITA. And, it will never get fixed.
The implicit obsoletes kills a lot of attempts to stay away from Core
packages.  I tried to not touch the python package, but, I threw up my
arms after trying for along time. So, you win some and you lose some.

Setting up a meta project to bridge 3rd party to Core will just be
unnecessary because the same politics and technical issues will still


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list