Jeff Pitman wrote:
On 12/30/05, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 12/29/05, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Exactly. Which is why any repo, be it atrpms or something else, that
does see a need to replace package foo in core, and thus has
overlapping package sets with core will not like this idiom. I have
already been hit by bug reports that stem from improper use of
priorities/weights and scores. Such filtering creates a lot more
issues and debugging problems than it solves.
let's be clear.... if protectbase plugin was turned on by default
would atrpm leave it enabled on client system or would you attempt to
disable the plugin via package scriptlet action?
For me, if someone wanted to use pyvault, I wouldn't automatically
disable it. But, I would have to document very prominently that if the
user wanted to use pyvault, they'd have to turn this off. And, it'd be
a FAQ, for sure.
So would third party repository maintainers consider Fedora Core having
protectbase by enabled acceptable?. Would it better to document the
exist the functionality provided by protectbase plugin within the Fedora
release notes and let users configure it for themselves?
--
Rahul
Learn. Network. Experience open source.
Red Hat Summit Nashville | May 30 - June 2, 2006
Learn more: http://www.redhat.com/promo/summit/
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
