Fedora Extras is extra

[Axel Thimm]

On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 05:41:57AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:11:25 -0500, William M. Quarles wrote:
> > OK, someone pointed this out to me:
> > 
> > <http://www.fedora.us/wiki/RepositoryMixingProblems>
> > 
> > Join us or we'll start reproducing your software in your place anyways. 
> >   Does this not scream arrogance, bureacracy, and monopoly to anybody 
> > else?  Does this not seem very Microsoft-ish? 
> 
> You try to read between the lines and end up with something which is
> not what the page tries to point out. It makes your thoughts and your
> choice of words appear unnecessarily aggressive.

Let's get some original quotes, Michael does have a very poor memory,
it seems.

http://www.fedora.us/wiki/RepositoryMixingProblems?version=1
| The Fedora Linux project has made a decision that we will NOT
| cooperate with other repositories due to maintain cross-repository
| compatibilty because it is unmaintainable for several reasons:

(Note: this specific versioned entry was deleted from the wiki after I
quoted the above some time ago ...)

http://lists.freshrpms.net/pipermail/freshrpms-list/2003-November/006430.html
| I would assert that the alliances of 3rd party repositories that
| have tried to form in the recent past are not sustainable in the
| long term, for the same controversial reasons that fedora.us
| rejected cooperation with those entities earlier this year.

> [....]
> I don't understand this last paragraph, I'm afraid. And I don't see
> anyone at fedora.us trying to taking "every package that every other
> repository makes".

http://lists.freshrpms.net/pipermail/freshrpms-list/2003-February/002997.html
| These packages would be vital to actually attract users to the
| project. 
|   More users would attract more attention, and perhaps more
| developers would join us.  Please help me convert Matthias'
| FreshRPMS to the Fedora naming scheme.

> Spend some time thinking about inter-repository coordination and
> scalability of inter-repository dependencies. People have thought about
> it before.

... and made very valuable contributions to the naming scheme which
were dropped simply because they favoured multiple repo setups (w/o
blocking a single repo setup).

> Present a complete guide on how to solve inter-repository
> collaboration,

You mean like the efforts in spring 2003 where every single submission
to the docs wrt interoperability went to /dev/null? That's a good
tactic, let the opponents Bang Their Harts Against Some Mad Bugger's
Wall (TM).
-- 
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-list/attachments/20041129/6aaa5e17/attachment-0001.sig>