Fedora Extras packaging beta software into production repos, why?

[Matthias Saou]

Axel Thimm wrote :

> As a consequence I will not only need to rebuild all of the asterisk
> suite again to pick up the proper dependencies, but also to stop using
> Fedora Extras as a repo for build requirements and start using Epoch
> on clean packages.

Axel, this is frame bait, plain and simple, and I'd really wish you'd
omit such comments from discussions in order to first let people
understand the problem, then let us all have a constructive discussion
about it. These kind of threats will _never_ help, quite the opposite.

Back to the initial problem : Extras has included a beta version of
asterisk as well as beta versions of the required libraries.

So... first question that comes to mind : "Why a beta?" (especially as
you state that is has many know problems) I don't know, but you could
ask in the review request, or ask Jeffrey C. Ollie directly :
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178922

Note that the release of the package is PLAIN WRONG, and as such the
package shouldn't be able to pass the review, and the zaptel package
shouldn't have passed its review either :
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-d97a3f40b6dd9d2288206ac9bd8f1bf9b791b22a

Then the second question : "Why backport to FC5 and not just leave in
FC6?". Again, I would have left FC5 alone for such a package, but
that's just me. There probably is a reason.

Once it is clearer why this decision was made, then we can move forward
into the discussion and try to look for solutions to your problem.

- Epoch is not the answer.
- But what was the question?
- It doesn't matter.

;-p

Matthias

-- 
Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora Core release 5.92 (FC6 Test3) - Linux kernel 2.6.18-1.2798.fc6
Load : 0.11 0.13 0.10