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?
Description: PGP signature