Fedora Extras packaging beta software into production repos, why?

[Axel Thimm]

On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 05:22:43PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Josh Boyer schrieb:
> > As for the third party repo aspect of this, that is quite difficult.
> > There are potentially tons of third party repos, which already conflict
> > with each other.  We cannot show preference for one or the other.  That
> > does not mean that a third party repository maintainer cannot open a
> > bug.  It just means that we cannot expect Extras maintainers to go
> > looking for problems in each and every third party repo before updating
> > something.
> 
> +1

I think this is a dangerous attitude. W/o going into ugly details I
believe the reason that Fedora has such a cluttered 3rd party
repository support in comparison to all other distros is just because
of that historic strategic and tactical errors (IMO) that were at the
beginning of the project alienating most 3rd party repositories.

The last years have shown that this can be undone, but unfortunately
at a slow pace, and with often setbacks. In order to close the gaps in
the community you need to follow embracement politics, not (actively)
ignore and alienate parts of it.

It was just a few days ago that someone ranted about a 3rd party repo
forking Fedora, and this is just an example which shows that the
actors are reversed.

I deliberately left off details to not micro-discuss again about repo
foorpms and package bar and baz, I'm just targetting the big picture.
-- 
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/20061028/cf6efbb2/attachment.sig>