On 04/29/2011 05:43 AM, Mathieu Bridon wrote: > On Fri, 2011-04-29 at 02:29 -0700, Ryan Rix wrote: >> On Tue 26 April 2011 21:58:08 Mathieu Bridon wrote: >>> On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 15:43 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: >>>> it is better to have the package (even if it's poorly >>>> maintained) than to not have it at all! >>> >>> I think that's where some of us disagree with you. >>> >>> Having lots of parts of poor quality doesn't raise the global quality of >>> Fedora. Having only a few parts, each of excellent quality, does. >> >> Yeah, it's great until users start leaving for distros which actually have >> packages of stuff they use. > > The alternative being that users leave for distros which actually > properly maintain packages of stuff they use. :) > > Could we put them into a low-no-maintenance repo then - so they are available but caveat emptor? However the primay benefit of a repo, is that (a) its simple to install (b) it will update easily via yum. For things that are not being maintained upstream, (b) does not apply so its only (a). For things that are not maintained by fedora team but are active upstream, having them in a fedora repo seems silly. gene/ -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
