On Fri, 2004-02-27 at 05:15, Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote: > On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 02:24:42 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:27:32 +0000, Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote: > > >> As for this fist fight between Micheal and Dag, let me just say that this > >> is a real storm in a teacup. > > > > Wonder what makes it look like a "fight"? > > > >> I'm sure someone who works that hard without financial reward, surely > >> cannot be described as someone who doesn't care. > > > > You're extending the topic quite a bit now. "Doesn't care" as in "doesn't > > care about fedora.us". > > Well maybe I did stretch the context a bit, but even in the given context, > I find it hard to believe that Dag doesn't care about fedora.us. If he > didn't care, then he wouldn't keep questioning Fedora policy? Anyway, > those are questions for him to answer himself. I can't speak for Dag or anybody else but I'm reading between the lines that he (and others) are interested in Fedora Extras which fedora.us is supposed to become/be merged with, and wants to discuss these things so that the official Fedora Extras can get rid of some of the issues that have kept him and other individual repository maintainers away from contributing to fedora.us. So please lets not get into the painful and tiresome fedora.us vs individual-repositories flamewars again but at least *try* to have a decent discussion what Fedora Extras rules should be, since the current fedora.us policies are more than obviously driving various people away from it. Having the kind of people who can maintain dozens or hundreds of packages themselves (like the individual repository maintainers now do) on board instead of everybody ignoring and denying each others existence would be an asset, not a bad thing. And no, I don't expect Dag, Matthias, Axel & co to push all of their packages into Fedora Extras no matter how things are arranged but anything reducing the ridiculous re-re-re-repackaging of the same stuff over and over again in 10 different repositories can be only a good thing, the current situation is just wasting a lot of time and effort of relatively scarce resources. Oh and before somebody points me to some of my own old comments about existence of individual repositories: yes they will continue to exist and there's nothing wrong with that, there's always market for specialized bleeding-edge/whatever repositories. The thing we should get rid of is the repackaging of same basic stuff (as in "everybody uses") over and over again. > > >> I don't feel threatened by the existence of DAG-RPMS any more than I do > >> about Livna, in fact I'm glad of having more choice. That is, after all, > >> what "community" is all about. > > > > Imagine Dag would stop maintaining his hundreds of packages all of a > > sudden (without any particular reason). > > I think Livna would shut down without Dams, and if you and Warren went to > the Bahamas for two weeks - fedora.us would be a very quiet place indeed. > Let's not get too paranoid about what *might* happen, but lets concentrate > on expanding what we *do* have. Dunno about Livna but at least fedora.us does have other "build masters" (whatever the exact term was escapes my mind right now) so things can get published in absence of Michael, Dams and Michael. OTOH absence of Michael would probably mean any QA work grinding to near halt - kudos to him for the enormous effort he puts there. Peace, love and lot of packages for all, eh? :) - Panu -
