On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 10:04:27AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Axel Thimm wrote: > >On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 08:34:36AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >>So would third party repository maintainers consider Fedora Core > >>having protectbase by enabled acceptable?. > > > >I think the thread's consensus is that this would not benefit anyone > >as much as it puts pain to the 3rd party folks (maintainers and > >users). > > > Considering that this request came from one of the third party > repository users I wouldnt be quick to dismiss that. If the plugin is in > FC and the repository maintainers add the information to disable it for > their users instead of disabling it through RPM then it could > potentially help users make a more informed decision on letting > repositories replace packages. And generate more support issues with the 3rd party repos. Yum is already creating support headaches with the --enable=foo switch, and having this being the default will not make it easier on us. Do you want 3rd parties to support Fedora Core? Then consider whether you want to make is easier or more difficult for those repositores to operate properly. And don't forget: We're talking about fixing something that isn't broken ... -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp5OYnYalat4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
