Summary of the 2008-04-08 Packaging Committee meeting

[Rahul Sundaram]

Les Mikesell wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>
>>  Why, for example, couldn't the changes you say
>>> fedora needs as a dependency for openoffice be included in the 
>>> jpackage repository for that fedora release and maintained as exact 
>>> copies?
>>
>> You are again ignoring reasons already explained. Jpackage specializes 
>> in Java packages and doesn't include all the packages Fedora does and 
>> vice versa. So the dependencies cannot be the same. Even it does there 
>> are differences in release cycles, patches, packaging and licensing 
>> policy among other reasons. It is pretty difficult to have two 
>> variants of a software with different maintainers in two different 
>> repositories perfectly in sync all the time even with the best efforts.
> 
> The 'different maintainers' is the point in question.  Did anyone offer 
> to maintain the duplicated packages upstream with needed changes instead 
> of forking incompatible ones?  

Maintainers even if they are some which they are in some cases cannot 
avoid changes introduced for other reasons. In some cases, they try to 
stay in sync. In other cases, they have to deviate.  Picking one point 
and ignoring others just keeps continuing your discussions endlessly. So 
  end this discussion here and just move on.

Rahul