Michael Stenner wrote:
>If all of the patches and features were guaranteed to get into yum,
>then I would agree with you. However, if you release a program based
>on yum that has code and functionality that never appears in yum
>itself, then that is by definition a fork. If you do that, then to
>avoid ambiguity, you might consider naming it something other than
>"yum".
>
>I understand that you don't intend to deviate from yum in behavior.
>You just want to get patches in early. But because you can't know
>what patches WILL get into yum, it's just not possible to lead yum
>without risking going off in a different direction. If you want to
>say that your program is mostly-compatible or something, then fine,
>but it could very confusing if some people thought they were
>interchangeable.
>
>
>
No-no-no!
I mean what i only want to build package with some patches
(like RedHat and other distributors do). Look for example
on emacs or kernel packages in RH. It's contains tons of patches
but still named as 'emacs' or 'kernel'. Yes, i understand what
some patches can be added to main YUM.
>How would you set the version? What happens when your "yum" and the
>the official yum happen to use the same version number but with
>different code and behavior?
>
>
Of cause all packages folow same version numbers with yum.
--
..............................................................
IRC: irc.freenode.net #asplinux Grigory Bakunov
ICQ: 51369901 ASPLinux Development Team
Life would be so much easier if
we could just look at the source code.
