Fedora Extras is extra

[Jeff Vian]

On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 08:33 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 01:14 -0600, Jeff Vian wrote:
> 
> > If you have been following this list in the last few weeks you would
> > know where that problem lies, and not blame that on fedora.
> The reasons are technical ones.
> 

Exactly. Since Fedora is the OS core, the packagers have to match their
core product.  Regardless of which repository the package comes from it
still has to work on the base OS. 

> > As I see it, the packagers in charge of fedora.us (aka fedora-extras)
> Fedora.US != Fedora.Extras.
> 
> Fedora.US hosts and built Fedora-Extras for FC1/FC2.
> 
> Fedora Extras for FC3 is conducted by RH and supposed to be hosted by
> RH.
> 
> > refuse to try and build packages that are cross compatible
> "Refuse" is he wrong wording. It's technically impossible to be
> compatible with arbitrary repositories containing competing packages, so
> at least I don't even try to spend/waste time on trying to be
> compatible.

As I read the mail between (I think) you and Dag recently it seemed a
refusal to try. This, even though his proposal was reasonable as an
approach to making it work, or at least standardizing the approach to
providing consistent features/dependencies.  

> 
> >  in spite of
> > Dag's attempts to work with them and make packages that "just work"
> > regardless of what site they came from and what site mixture is used.
> Such attempts can only work in special cases at one point in time. 
> In general and in longer terms, they are doomed to fail.
> 
> Ralf
> 

They are only "doomed to fail" in the beginning if there is no reasoned
attempt to find a solution.  While the attempt may fail, a failure to
try does not preordain an insoluble problem, it only prevents the
attempt at a solution. 

Dag's suggestion to find a way to write spec files that are smart enough
to be flexible seems a start at making it work, as would consistent
naming and contents of packages.  Refusing to consider and try his
suggestion, but instead saying "it won't work" seems to me a "refusal to
try".

Refusal to make an attempt makes certain that incompatibilities WILL
exist.

Jeff