ATrpms and FC5/RHEL5

Jeff Pitman jeff.pitman at
Tue Jan 3 06:03:24 UTC 2006

On 1/3/06, Jarod Wilson <jarod at> wrote:
> On Monday 02 January 2006 21:33, Jeff Pitman wrote:
> > On 1/3/06, Jarod Wilson <jarod at> wrote:
> > Note the line:
> >
> > """This issue should be fixed in Fedora Core 3, thanks to Red Hat's
> > involvement in JPackage."""
> So the anti-3rd-party repository stance isn't unilaterally applied against all
> 3rd-party repos, I take it?

Right, generally, if you package for livna or jpackage, you're sitting
pretty good. There's a lot of history behind this along with different
packagers being in the right place at the right time. Basically, a
specific repo has a social status and requires high merit points to
get things moving in a direction that they need. It's a bit like us as
individuals ... based on meritocracy and getting an inside scoop.

Besides social engineering, there is no other formal mechanism to push
forward smooth operation between Core/Extras and a third party. If
users are not privy to the fact that Core packages have to be updated
sometimes, then they can either fork or not use.

It's a pretty simplistic view of things, but, it's the truth.


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list