On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 00:35 -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> On 6/2/05, seth vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > c. Their software is licensed so that it cannot be put in Extras.
> >
> > yep. that's the use case I figured from the .fap file you were
> > describing before.
>
> Yes, I cannot deny that the last 2 weeks spent packaging nonfree
> software has greatly influenced this post. :) That, plus the sad fact
> that even though several vendors provide .rpm files, they are utterly
> unusable because they try to be installable on as many things as
> possible, and always end up sucking on all.
Yes, very true. And what could be done to help fix that?
I propose: reviews, feedback, & iterative improvement
In my opinion, your original "thinking-out-loud" post overlooked perhaps
the biggest benefit of projects like Fedora Extras which is the
*reviews*. Folks seem to be very focused on tools but I'm not convinced
that better versions of yum, rpm, rpmlint, etc. will solve everything.
The tools can help a *lot* but, ultimately, its best to have a few
people review your junk and offer feedback. Even the sexiest and most
modern of automated tools still do a lousy job of discerning intent and
suggesting better approaches.
And if the 3rd-party or commercial packagers that you mention joined the
conversation, accepted feedback, and then used it to improve things
their packages would probably suck a lot less.
But then perhaps they wouldn't be "3rd-party" any more... ;-)
Ed
--
Edward H. Hill III, PhD
office: MIT Dept. of EAPS; Rm 54-1424; 77 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
emails: eh3@xxxxxxx ed@xxxxxxx
URLs: http://web.mit.edu/eh3/ http://eh3.com/
phone: 617-253-0098
fax: 617-253-4464
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
