Re: Re: are RPMForge and EPEL compatible?

[Ray Van Dolson <rvandolson@xxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 12:03:51PM -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Morten Torstensen wrote:
>> [snip away bible quotes]
>>
>> This is getting way off topic, please consider what you post.
>>
>
> Having only one true repository whose name shall not be uttered in the 
> package filenames doesn't remind you of anything?

No.  What exactly are you getting at? :)

Seems like this issue is kinda moot at this point... and honestly,
although maybe it would have been _nice_ for EPEL to use repotags, I
think their thinking is that Fedora and Fedora Extras in the past
doesn't use them; they consider themselves "upstream" in a way and are
sticking to that same behavior.  They also didn't feel that repotags
were really a good solution to the problem.

Many discussions and arguments occurred, but in the end this is how it
worked out.  And if I recall, EPEL did finally agree to use repotags,
but ATrpms had already removed all repotags from their packages so the
driving reason to do it was at that point gone.

It's unfortunate, but doesn't seem like it's going to change.  I guess
that doesn't mean we need to stop talking about it, but maybe instead
of hollering about the need for repotags it's time to collaborate in
the other direction -- building a better way to track reopsitories into
the RPM database itself.

Ray
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos