[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Fostering Cooperation (was Yum and EXTRAS)



On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 21:35:14 +0100, Andy Green wrote:

> Seems unusually consistent to me.  Dag had the same understanding too:
> 
> http://dag.wieers.com/home-made/apt/FAQ.php

And with that there is the jump back to May 31st, where I asked in
this thread:

  "?? Do you refer to Dag's not so friendly paragraph in his FAQ?"

Sorry, but unless you present actual solutions -- such as a concept on
inter-repository collaboration/coordination/cooperation -- this is a dead
end.

> |>Yeah, as I wrote before (base+extras) is the new base.  Again the effect
> |>is to pull packages from the RPMForge orbit into Extras, which because
> |>of its "enabled by default" feature and Fedora relationship is likely to
> |>become the uber-repo that you envisage.
> |
> | Which is a good thing.
> 
> High quality GPL'd packages coming out of Extras have to be a good thing
> for everybody.  RPMForge getting packages sucked out of it does not
> sound like a good thing for most people.

How is your second sentence above meant to be understood?

> |>It's encouraging that "Cooperation is possible" then... but this is new
> |>information to me.
> |
> | As long as you can't explain where your "cooperation is impossible"
> | theory comes from, I cannot comment on this. Then there's still the
> | question what kind of cooperation do you think of?
> 
> Lol...

Bad form unless you want to stop a serious discussion abruptly.

> since you today noted that cooperation is possible, I am pleased
> to agree with you it is possible.  But anyone reading your old document
> will not come away with that impression I think.  Maybe you should
> update it with this case where cooperation is possible.

I realise you still don't [want to] understand what that old Wiki page
tries to point out.
 
> Anyway, I detect we are going around in circles and not moving forward,
> you are welcome to the last word.

Fine. How about you get to the gory details? Really, what changes do you
want?

Attachment: pgpul7qhYhmij.pgp
Description: PGP signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]