[Fedora-packaging] Re: Introduction

[Axel Thimm]

On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 02:04:06PM -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> I'm the sucker who volunteered to head up RPM Standards and
> Practices for Fedora Extras. I'd like to make a few things clear,
> before we get to the good stuff:
> 
> Check your egos at the door. If all you feel like doing is
> posturing, flaming, or mocking, this is NOT the list to do it in (I
> hear fedora-list is nice this time of year). If I think you're being
> more of a nuisance than an asset, I will warn you, then kick you off
> the list if you continue. I hope it doesn't come to that.

Is this list really only for Fedora Extras, formerly fedora.us
practices? Can't it be extended to a larger universe?

This was the main obstruction that created the hasm two years ago
between fedora.us and the rest of the world. It would be nice to
attack this issue w/o isolating again any parties.

What about Fedora Core itself? It doesn't make sense to have Fedora
Core and Extras living side by side having different naming/versioning
policies.

In fact I would go as far as to say that a sane set of packaging
practices should not only be applicable to Fedora, but to RHEL as well
(whether RHEL adopts it is another topic, but it should not be cut off
from the beginning), and - why not - even outside the Red Hat rpm
world.

A lot of issues discussed here already have good solutions and defacto
standards in 3rd party repos for Fedora Core or other distributions.

I'd like to finally see a common effort on this and see the
unneccessary barriers break to pieces. :)
-- 
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-packaging/attachments/20050226/b1c7d703/attachment.sig>