[Fedora-packaging] Fedora Packaging Member forking Fedora/Causing problems with community and users

[Christopher Stone]

On 10/18/06, Christopher Stone <chris.stone at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 think that if this is as big of a problem as you claim, then it should
> > be rather trivial for you (or someone else motivated) to install a
> > Fedora box, enable the atrpms repo, and start filing bugs if/when things
> > break. 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. :)
>
> Fair enough.  I will start by filing a bug report against the gtk libs
> RyeBrye had problems with.  I hope this solution works.  If it does
> not, I will re-address this issue here.
>


I have filed over one-hundred and ten (110+) bugs for conflicts
between ATrpms and FC/FE repositories.  The tracker bug can be found
here:

http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1028

So let's see what becomes of this.  AT should be happy because this is
probably over 50% of his packages, so his work load should be cut in
half.