Fedora Extras packaging beta software into production repos, why?

[Axel Thimm]

On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 10:15:56PM -0300, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
> Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net> wrote:
> > 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
> 
> Which ones?

W/o wanting to sound like the distro expert of the week I would say
all major ones.

> Fedora is /large/ (larger than most), so problems show up more
> clearly. Some "others" have the policy of "everything is official",
> so (by definition) there can't be a problem with external stuff.

No, that's not the reason. And none of the Debian/Ubuntu/SuSE/Mandriva
have "everything is official" policies, perhaps some smaller
distributions do.

> >                                                       is just because
> > of that historic strategic and tactical errors (IMO) that were at the
> > beginning of the project alienating most 3rd party repositories.
> 
> I'm not so sure they were errors... it is quite reasonable to ask (and
> gently nudge/force) for third parties to roll their stuff into the official
> repos.

I'm referring to times where there were no official repos. And
asking/coordinating is what I'm after, so we are probably on the same
side even if you don't know it.

> [...]
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Those you should BZ.

You missed the "again" part.
-- 
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/20061030/83cd993c/attachment.sig>