Fedora Extras packaging beta software into production repos, why?

[Axel Thimm]

On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 02:35:01PM -0600, Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-10-29 at 10:51 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 07:57:22PM -0500, Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2006-10-28 at 23:18 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 06:12:14PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 09:30:02AM -0500, Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote:
> > > > > > Even if I had stayed with 1.2.X packages there would have been problems
> > > > > > coexisting with the atrpms repository...
> > > > > 
> > > > > Why? This only happens if you ignore that these packages exist
> > > > > and are used by a large number of people.
> > > > 
> > > > No answer on this one?
> > > 
> > > If atrpms and FE both have asterisk packages it would be difficult to
> > > use both repos at the same time.  In any case, the fact that a package
> > > exists in another repo is not a good enough reason to keep it out of FE.
> > 
> > But it would make sense to provide an upgrade path or seek any kind of
> > coordination, or not?
> 
> Maybe it makes sense for you, and maybe it makes sense for people that
> use atrpms, but it doesn't make sense to me.

Ignoring these users and stampeding over their systems is not really
neccessary.

> > Instead the situation you created is that neither non-ATrpms
> > users,
> 
> Hmm??  Non-ATrpms users aren't any worse off than they were before...
> Until the Asterisk package is approved and the Zaptel kernel modules are
> in the kernel package they'll still have to compile Asterisk from source
> - probably not much different from what they do now.

OK, then please try to build from source the released asterisk
version. And find out that the beta dependencies break asterisk in a
silent way. There is no API break that would fail the build, instead
the build is dysfunctional.

> >  nor ATrpms users could make any use of asterisk at all.
> 
> If ATrpms wants to have packages that override packages in Fedora
> Extras, either bump the epoch or provide some other mechanism for ATrpms
> users to get the ATrpms Asterisk packages rather than the Fedora Extras
> version.

Thanks for forcing ATrpms to use epochs. And I really wonder who is
overriding whom in this case. And with what: A yet incomplete solution
(since the main app is missing) based on beta versions of software
with known problems (which is why it's beta after all).

You're adding to the problem of repo gaps and incompatibilities in the
Fedora world w/o contributing any real added value otherwise. And all
that because "it doesn't make sense to you to coordinate".
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20061030/390e4cfb/attachment.sig>