[Fedora-packaging] Re: Exception for JPackage

[Axel Thimm]

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, in fact I wish that this kind of mutual cooperation
rather extends.

As a general rule of thumb I would say that

o cooperation enlarges the community and that's one of Fedora's
  strength,
o if it's cheaper for Fedora to cater for compatibility than reinvent
  the wheel, then why not?
o if compatibility obstructs otherwise something and is not worth it
  can always be dumped, i.e. it is not the highest goal
-- 
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/20070201/197c9a0b/attachment.sig>