[Fedora-packaging] Re: Exception for JPackage

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 08:48 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> 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.
Let me put it this way: 


To me, it is a bit bewildering to see a project initially being launched
as "integration platform for 3rd parties" to explicitly take one of its
"rivals" into consideration as a "special exception" that someone
labeled "forever, ... amen".


If "Fedora integration" really works out, then we should see "integrated
packages" and external 3rd party providing add-on packages, which should
be treated as private pleasures of those implementing it.

If Fedora wants to take external repos into account, then I'd prefer not
to see a singular exception for jpp, but generally applicable rules.
Unfortunately, I don't see how this can be implemented nor am I
expecting much interest from inside Fedora to address this any time
soon.

> 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.
Probably, only somebody @redcom.com can answer this, but I would not
deny this thought.

> o less patent encumbered/closed source parts than other repos
Patents yes.

Wrt. "non-free" I don't see that jpp is substantially different from how
livna and other 3rd parties shipping "non-free"/non-OSI compliant
package.



Wrt. voting, I am undecided, because, to me, the proposal boils down to
deciding between two "mediocre compromises":

a) Accepting it would mean catering a pragmatical compromise, which
isn't necessarily in the Fedora community's long-term interests and
which might weaken OpenSource in longer terms.

b) Rejecting it would mean insisting on a position that isn't
necessarily in RH's nor Fedora's interest wrt. java, technically is
hardly resolvable, but would help the "wider community" (3rd parties).

I would have voted +1 if I'd sense this proposal to be a short-term
compromise and precedence aiming at systematic integration of 3rd
parties. Spot's comment lets me think this doesn't apply.

Ralf