Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor (was: [Bug 210775])

Christopher Stone chris.stone at
Mon Oct 16 06:51:23 UTC 2006

On 10/15/06, seth vidal <skvidal at> wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-10-15 at 19:19 -0400, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 06:15:37PM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> > > Well, forgive my ignorance here, but does ATrpms override any FC or FE
> > > RPMs? If so, why?
> >
> > It strikes me that this is fixable in software whether intentional or not
> > by teaching yum that repository 'x' must not contain packages that clash
> > with repository 'y' and if they do to skip it for now with a warning.
> >
> There's a plugin called 'protectbase' which does just that.

I think that a repository that overrides base packages is far more
damaging than any comments an individual can make on bugzilla or the
mailing list.  It is essentially forking Fedora and causes a lot of
problems for the Fedora community.  Such repositories are essentially
creating their own distribution and should not be acceptable.  It
would be better for everyone, in my opinion, if these repositories
created their own distribution instead.

Therefore, I propose that the 'protectbase' plugin, be actually
integrated into yum proper, and instead make a plugin which allows
repositories to override core packages.  That is, the default should
be that no repository is allowed to override base packages unless you
specifically install a plugin to allow them to do so.


More information about the Fedora-maintainers mailing list