On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:31:38AM -0400, Chris McDonough wrote: > On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 05:48, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > fedora.us have some heavier procedures to ensure package quality. Some > > top packagers including Matthias decided not to bother with them and > > maintain their own repo (very simplistic summary). That is too simplistic and gets close to a myth. In fact almost all current bigger repos existed before fedora.us and were thrilled by the idea of getting a common project going. It turned out that fedora.us was not interested in a cooperation but more in a cloning (primarily of freshrpms then) and competition. This is what drove repo maintainers back. Personally I favour heavy procedures. > > You can however take their SPECS, submit them to fedora and go > > through the QA process for them (and in turn they're welcome to > > take back the changes QA proposed and get them in their own specs) Or you refrain from creating even more overlaps/incompatibilities and submit your changes right into freshrpms. > Thanks for the explanation! I understand now. I will try to run the > gauntlet with my SRPM then without contacting Matthias. Bad idea, but I see that the communication was initiated nevertheless (good! :). -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpbblkqPYuGW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
