[Fedora-packaging] Fedora Packaging Member forking Fedora/Causing problems with community and users
chris.stone at gmail.com
Mon Nov 20 05:34:30 UTC 2006
On 10/18/06, Tom 'spot' Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 11:02 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
> > On 10/18/06, Rex Dieter <rdieter at math.unl.edu> wrote:
> > > Christopher Stone wrote:
> > >
> > > > I suggest that we have a comittee (possibly the packaging comittee)
> > > > create a wiki page which reviews 3rd party repositories for such
> > > > things as:
> > >
> > > IMO, this is outside the scope of the packaging committee's
> > > mandate/rights/responsibility.
> > >
> > > I'd suggest you start a new SIG if you feel so strongly about this subject.
> > I would be perfectly happy with this, even If its a one man SIG
> > consisting of only me. As long as there is a wiki page on the Fedora
> > wiki which has this information and users can be pointed to this page
> > to learn about the consequences of installing another repository I
> > would be happy.
> > However, I think it would be better to have a comittee review other
> > repositories instead of a single person who might be biased such as
> > myself.
> I even think it would be more productive to highlight the FC or
> FE packages that atrpms is providing overrides for, and start a
> discussion around why these packages exist, and if there exists the
> possibility to merge the changes into the FC or FE package and retire
> the atrpms packages. I'm sure that Axel would welcome that discussion,
> as less packages means less work for him. :)
I have filed over one-hundred bugs a month ago, and while some Fedora
users made an effort to try and reduce the conflicts, Axel has not
made a single response to a single bug report.
May I now proceed with my original idea of making an official wiki
page on fedoraproject.org which warns people of the potential dangers
from using ATrpms and other items discussed above?
More information about the Fedora-packaging