On Tue, 04 May 2004 20:59:53 +0100, Mark McLoughlin <markmc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Yeah, I was mainly referring to post release too, although you could > probably figure out something whereby the mass-update gets a lot of > QA-ing before being pushed. > > I'd be all for it, but it would be a rather large amount of work given > the number packages involved and the relative little gain for doing it. > I guess its something that people could easily help out with so once we > have an external CVS we could certainly try and figure it out. >From the sounds of things, this is an example of something that would fit into the scope of Fedora Alternatives and certainly not Fedora Extras. http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/terminology.html Which frankly, FA is very undefined and frought with inherent dangers that Fedora Extras, being a place for addons, mostly doesn't have to worry about. Issues like how to upgrade to a new FC release becomes much much more complicated once FA walks out of the vapor. And I haven't seen any noteworthy discussion how to keep FA sane and consistent. There's no reason to think that their couldn't be 17 different versions of the same package, all with different compile time options, sitting in FA for people to grab, can the update repo tools handle that? I'm even sure anyone's mental canons have swung around to even think about what Fedora Alternatives is actually going to look like yet. -jef
