Fedora Extras packaging beta software into production repos, why?

[Jeffrey C. Ollie]

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.  If I want to package a
piece of software for Fedora Extras and it meets all of the other FE
packaging guidelines I'm going to package it and not worry about what
umpteen other repos may be doing.

>  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.

Plus we have convinced Digium to reconsider getting the Zaptel kernel
modules into the vanilla kernel, I think that says a lot about 

>  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.

Jeff

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20061029/8df56106/attachment.sig>