Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor

[Karen Pease]

Amen.

Enough with the "ATrpms breaks your system" stuff that we're stil* getting on 
this list.  I've used ATrpms for a long time, and never once had a problem.  
Let's get through the Bugzilla list as quickly as possible so as not to spam 
Axel's system, figure out what's obsolete or what we can improve in Extras to 
make obsolete, and if ATrpms pulls those obsolete packages, I think we have 
no cause for complaint about what's left, even if it overrides a Fedora 
package (because it would obviously mean that it's being overridden for a 
reason).  

Is there really any more that needs to be said that, apart for on the 
individual package bugzilla threads?  If not, we can close this thread once 
and for all.

  - Karen

On Thursday 19 October 2006 08:02 am, Tim Jackson wrote:
> Christopher Stone wrote:
> > You should not replace core packages in your repository.  Instead you
> > should file bug reports against the packages in FC/FE which you need
> > to replace in order to fix them so they don't need to be replaced.  If
> > there is *anybody* on this mailing list that disagrees with this
> > statement, please speak up.  I doubt anyone will.
>
> Actually, I have an issue with this, at least with the way you're
> expressing it (actually, my personal preferences and policies appear to
> be broadly aligned with yours). Indeed, what you say is probably the
> "best" solution, and promoting it is good. I don't (directly) use ATrpms
> myself, out of personal choice and for various reasons including some of
> the ones you cited.
>
> HOWEVER,
>
> a) Axel has contributed an awful lot to the community by providing a lot
> of useful packages; even though I don't have AT in my repos.d, I have
> found a number of his packages/specs useful over time. He is also an
> Extras contributor. Thus I don't think the strength of anti-Axel comment
> here is justified. Let's not make this personal. (NB ATrpms = Axel =
> personal)
>
> b) I don't think that any of us have the right to dictate what someone
> does or doesn't maintain on their privately-managed website. If Axel
> wants to build packages that conflict with Fedora for whatever reason
> (right or wrong) then that's his prerogative. Nobody else has to use
> them if they don't want. If there's misunderstanding amongst users about
> the policies of that website then that's a different issue.
>
> c) in the general sense (I am not getting into discussions of specifics
> here or whether these apply to AT or not) there are sometimes valid
> reasons for repos to override core stuff which don't fall into the
> category of "core bugs". These include amongst others:
>
> i) personal/private situations (custom things)
> ii) special interests e.g. music/realtime/embedded (e.g. PlanetCCRMA)
> iii) experimentation/proof of concept/development etc.
> iv) legal (of course, plugin architecture is best, but that's not
>      *always* possible)
>
> I suppose in summary I would say that there are a number of valid points
> here:
>
> * it would be great in theory IF the overlap between AT/other repos and
>    FC/FE  could be reduced. I think good progress has been made:
>    personally I find that FC+FE+Livna covers most of my needs. I
>    think Axel wants the same, otherwise he wouldn't be an FE contributor.
>    However due to differing needs both technically, legally and
>    policy-wise I don't think there will ever be a perfect situation. And
>    no matter how much progress we make, if people want to run their own
>    repositories with their own packages that override and conflict with
>    Core, then well, that's their choice. Let the users choose whether
>    they want that or not.
>
> * it is good that users should be conscious about the sources of the
>    software that they install, and understand the implications.
>
> * if people are using repos that override core packages, it's good that
>    they are clear about this and understand it.
>
> * your comments are based on some kind of concept of "production
>    systems". I think everyone understands that concept, but exactly what
>    it means in practice differs between people and situations. I have
>    different policies towards repo usage on my home desktop machine to my
>    personal server, to my office workstation and company servers. Horses
>    for courses, so to speak.
>
> However, none of these mean that we have a right to tell people like
> Axel (or anyone else) what they should and shouldn't do with their own
> personal projects. By all means, in a spirit of co-operation, we can say
> "Please would you make it abundantly clear that your repo overrides core
> packages, and this makes it difficult for users to get support because
> they're not really running 'Fedora' any more" or "Hey, let's work
> together to get as much as possible into Core/Extras to reduce the need
> for third-party repos". But let's not dictate to people or be
> over-critical. Their life, their time, their choice. I'm pretty sure
> we're all on the same side here and we want to encourage people to get
> involved and work towards a common goal, not drive them away.
>
>
> Tim
>
> --
> Fedora-maintainers mailing list
> Fedora-maintainers at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers