On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 01:54:57PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Axel Thimm wrote: >> >> Incompatible to what? If there are conflicts between ATrpms' packages >> and others from the N thousand official packages, please report >> them and we'll fix them. > > You could simply run a script Which one? If there are conflicts they are at file level which is (was?) always a problem for the main Fedora repos within themselves, too. I know Jesse was one using one (in mesh?) but it was horribly stalling rawhide composes, so it was deactivated. But this was half a year ago, perhaps the current koji/mesh/etc toolchain does that for you now. > and just not duplicate packages already in the official repo. In a > quick glance, I can spot pdfmerge, xine-lib and several others, some > of which are not deps of anything else. So it is just unnecessary > extra work. According to logs and dates I packaged pdfmerge on Nov 9 2003 and by happenstance Fedora's first release ever was a week later. Now I see that you imported pdfmerge into Fedora about half a year ago. It would probably not take much to ping me and ask whether we can either comaintain, or work together on providing an upgrade path to users of this package (which hasn't changed EVR since 5 years!). So when talking about duplication of work/efforts one needs to check what was really the duplicate, just blaming ATrpms for carring duplicates, when these are actually ancient packages is wrong. And when discussing about incompatibilities/package upgrades etc. one also needs to admit that it is a two way *co*operation. I can't hunt the Fedora package database to see whether XYZ packaged foo and bar and to review his/her package to see whether it properly steps up from the pervious package and then ensure package upgrade paths etc. I wasn't aware of pdfmerge being in Fedora as your import didn't actually create any user issues for them to report. We had a discussion with Max and Mike at LinuxTag about this last year and the common approach was that Fedora packagers would be kindly asked to check and cooperate with (major) 3rd party repos instead of blindly packaging creating the incompatibilities (actually this was more in the loght of EPEL than Fedora proper). Unfortunately this was never really followed up after the meeting. And to xine: This is also a package by Paulo, so I can say less about it, but AFAIK he needed to undo some of the multimedia codec removal bits to reenable some functionality. I'm not a xine user (maybe I should become one, but I'm an mplayer guy), so I don't know what was fixed, but the changelogs are your friend. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpuVypFayQWZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
