Christopher Stone wrote:
You should not replace core packages in your repository. Instead you
should file bug reports against the packages in FC/FE which you need
to replace in order to fix them so they don't need to be replaced. If
there is *anybody* on this mailing list that disagrees with this
statement, please speak up. I doubt anyone will.
Actually, I have an issue with this, at least with the way you're
expressing it (actually, my personal preferences and policies appear to
be broadly aligned with yours). Indeed, what you say is probably the
"best" solution, and promoting it is good. I don't (directly) use ATrpms
myself, out of personal choice and for various reasons including some of
the ones you cited.
HOWEVER,
a) Axel has contributed an awful lot to the community by providing a lot
of useful packages; even though I don't have AT in my repos.d, I have
found a number of his packages/specs useful over time. He is also an
Extras contributor. Thus I don't think the strength of anti-Axel comment
here is justified. Let's not make this personal. (NB ATrpms = Axel =
personal)
b) I don't think that any of us have the right to dictate what someone
does or doesn't maintain on their privately-managed website. If Axel
wants to build packages that conflict with Fedora for whatever reason
(right or wrong) then that's his prerogative. Nobody else has to use
them if they don't want. If there's misunderstanding amongst users about
the policies of that website then that's a different issue.
c) in the general sense (I am not getting into discussions of specifics
here or whether these apply to AT or not) there are sometimes valid
reasons for repos to override core stuff which don't fall into the
category of "core bugs". These include amongst others:
i) personal/private situations (custom things)
ii) special interests e.g. music/realtime/embedded (e.g. PlanetCCRMA)
iii) experimentation/proof of concept/development etc.
iv) legal (of course, plugin architecture is best, but that's not
*always* possible)
I suppose in summary I would say that there are a number of valid points
here:
* it would be great in theory IF the overlap between AT/other repos and
FC/FE could be reduced. I think good progress has been made:
personally I find that FC+FE+Livna covers most of my needs. I
think Axel wants the same, otherwise he wouldn't be an FE contributor.
However due to differing needs both technically, legally and
policy-wise I don't think there will ever be a perfect situation. And
no matter how much progress we make, if people want to run their own
repositories with their own packages that override and conflict with
Core, then well, that's their choice. Let the users choose whether
they want that or not.
* it is good that users should be conscious about the sources of the
software that they install, and understand the implications.
* if people are using repos that override core packages, it's good that
they are clear about this and understand it.
* your comments are based on some kind of concept of "production
systems". I think everyone understands that concept, but exactly what
it means in practice differs between people and situations. I have
different policies towards repo usage on my home desktop machine to my
personal server, to my office workstation and company servers. Horses
for courses, so to speak.
However, none of these mean that we have a right to tell people like
Axel (or anyone else) what they should and shouldn't do with their own
personal projects. By all means, in a spirit of co-operation, we can say
"Please would you make it abundantly clear that your repo overrides core
packages, and this makes it difficult for users to get support because
they're not really running 'Fedora' any more" or "Hey, let's work
together to get as much as possible into Core/Extras to reduce the need
for third-party repos". But let's not dictate to people or be
over-critical. Their life, their time, their choice. I'm pretty sure
we're all on the same side here and we want to encourage people to get
involved and work towards a common goal, not drive them away.
Tim
--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
--
Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list
Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
