ATrpms and FC5/RHEL5

Jeff Pitman jeff.pitman at
Tue Jan 3 06:22:34 UTC 2006

On 1/3/06, Michael A. Peters <mpeters at> wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 20:18 -0800, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > On Monday 02 January 2006 18:12, Warren Togami wrote:
> >
> > I'm not saying Fedora should promote arbitrary mixes of 3rd-party
> > repositories, just that there aren't really any good reasons not to cooperate
> > with them, at least on some level. If repository X needs an updated libfoo to
> > build application bar that tons of users want, why not update Core's libfoo?
> One needs to be extremely cautious about updating a library in a live
> distro. I know it happens sometimes in Extras - but that is wrong too
> imho (unless they provide a compat package for the old version as well).

I doubt I am going to end the thread, but I hope to.

There are two sets of users: 1) users that do not want Core updated,
and 2) users that *do* want Core updated.

Continuing to debate about why turns into a "emacs vs vi" debate.
Seriously. Fedora should be agnostic as to either of these groups in
any obvious, active endeavor. Of course, micro-steps need to be made
on a per-package basis as reported via Bugzilla--when the maintainer
finds it as an acceptable change. Otherwise, we work around them.

And a final comment to the those users in #1: do not use repos that cater to #2.

That's it.


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list