[Fedora-packaging] Re: Exception for JPackage

[Axel Thimm]

On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 08:39:38AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 07:30 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 01:37:53AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 11:52 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > > > >>>>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at freenet.de> writes:
> > > > 
> > > > RC> On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 10:12 -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> > > > >> The Java packages in Fedora which originally come from the JPackage
> > > > >> repo are the only packages which fall under this exception. And
> > > > >> those packages will always fall under this exception, forever and
> > > > >> ever, amen (or until something dramatic changes).
> > > > 
> > > > RC> So Fedora will never have java packages of its own and depend on
> > > > RC> jpp?
> > > > 
> > > > I'm having trouble understanding how you get from spot's statement
> > > > above to your conclusion.
> > > > 
> > > > There are some packages which come from jpackage and there are some
> > > > that don't. 
> > > Then you might be able to explain why 
> > > * compatibility to packages from a 3rd party repo such as jpackage are
> > > of any importance to Fedora.
> > > 
> > > Except that people ARE mixing jpp-packages with Fedora, just like they
> > > do with freshrpms, atrpms, livna, dribble and many others I don't see
> > > any difference.
> > 
> > I don't think it's bad that Fedora cares about compatibility with 3rd
> > party repos,
> Neither do I.
> 
> >  in fact I wish that this kind of mutual cooperation
> > rather extends.
> 
> Exactly this is the point, I am asking: Why explicitly care about jpp?

OK, sorry I misunderstood you completely, I read your comments like
criticism for cooperation.

I can only guess about why jpp is treated "better" than other repos:

o one needs to start somewhere
o java is a key technology also required for RHEL, so there is vital
  interest in RH for it.
o less patent encumbered/closed source parts than other repos
o good quality packaging

If I didn't knew better I'd add

o good cooperation with the 3rd party maintainers

but according to some of Jesse's comments this seems to be less the
case (or was, it may have improved since).
-- 
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/20070201/d82dc748/attachment.sig>