On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 07:45 -0500, Ian Pilcher wrote: > Ville Skytt�rote: > > IMO that would be too much dictating local policies from our part, and > > subject to inherent distributed bitrot because folks usually download > > jpackage.repo only once. And I'm sure this stuff would not be limited > > to postgresql-jdbc. > > I don't understand your argument. Are you saying that the file can > never be changed? No, I'm saying that once someone has downloaded and installed the file, it's currently very unlikely that (s)he'll be downloading it again later even if we'd keep frequently fine tuning it on the JPackage website. > Probably, it should be put into it's own package > in the Fedora repos. That could help some, yes. But the *.repo files are configuration files, and the first thing I do after installing one (no matter where it comes from, packaged or not) is to remove the mirrorlist key and make it use a nearby fixed mirror. So, after an updated jpackage.repo appears from a package, I'd have to remember to diff my local changes against it from .rpmsave, or rather probably from .rpmnew, and apply as appropriate. I'm not sure if this is really less work than just keeping the exclusions up to date the way I prefer and need, without getting packaged jpackage.repo updates at all. So, it can be done, but the way I see it, it's not a silver bullet. > There's a larger question here. What is the "co-existence strategy" > for JPackage and Fedora Core? That question is better answered by people who have been more active here lately, but my observation is that the current reality is more or less "the end user gets to choose and configure". > Out of curiosity, what distributions *don't* include the PostgreSQL > JDBC drivers? (I.e. why does the JPackage RPM exist?) Dunno.
