Freshrpms.net concerns.

[Axel Thimm]

On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:22:05PM -0800, Florin Andrei wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 12:41, Marc Williams wrote:
> > I *think* that ATrpms, Freshrpms, Dag, and a few others collude so as to
> > make these sorts of conflicts unlikely.
> 
> Wouldn't it be great if all these projects will start to co-ordinate
> with each other somehow? To not re-invent the whell and all that...

Yes, and they already do. But it could be better and there could be
more repositories involved.

On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 11:36:43PM -0500, Lamar Owen wrote:
> Multiple repositories are healthy, IMO.  [...]

Agreed.

> I'm not sure it would be great to see all these repos cooperate.
> Maybe their differences are useful to some people.

cooperation != all the same ;)
I gagree that different repos have different needs (e.g. the
PlanetCCRMA repo needs good kernel latency for audio application, a
server oriented repo would prefer a stable and solid kernel and might
avoid latency patches etc.)

This does not mean that these repos should not cooperate or keep
compatibility up. The choise is not among repos, but withing the
complete set of packages available.

On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 06:39:52AM +0200, Maynard Kuona wrote:
> I am sure they will try to maintain compatibility with Fedora core and
> Fedora extras.

Not keeping compatibility with Fedora Core would mean not being for
this distribution. All repos need to have a base, unless they are
called Red Hat or Suse ;)

Fedora Extras is yet to emerge (possibly at FC2 test releases). It
isn't clear to me whether this will be one repo or a general
description of Red Hat hosted repos (like Fedora Extras High
Performance, Fedora Extras Engineering etc.).
-- 
Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de
-------------- 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-list/attachments/20031109/990353d2/attachment-0001.sig>