On Thursday 29 December 2005 20:53, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >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. > > I dont use them so I am neutral on that. Only talking about users here. I'm in the position of being both a user and a contributor to one of said 3rd-party repositories[1]. I definitely still want to support Fedora Core. > >And don't forget: We're talking about fixing something that isn't > >broken ... > > Getting bug reports based on packages being replaced isnt exactly a non > issue. Axel, I have to agree with Rahul here. While it isn't "broken", per se, its definitely an issue. There are quite a few people who are rather adverse to the way ATrpms, if enabled in full, replaces core packages, but still want to use a number of ATrpms packages. I know that (at least most of ;) the reasons for ATrpms replacing core packages are pure, at least from ATrpms' point of view, but there's something to be said for only upgrading what *must* be upgraded to add a new program. I think the majority of users who complain about ATrpms replacing core packages are what I'd call power-users, who are bright enough to enable protectbase for themselves, so protectbase off by default sounds reasonable to me. I think it gives those power-users what they want, and minimizes headaches for 3rd-party repo maintainers from sheeple who just want an mp3 player (or mythtv ;). [1] Disclaimer: I do a bit of packaging work for ATrpms. -- Jarod Wilson jarod@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
pgpyKMicJRILK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
