On Monday 02 January 2006 18:12, Warren Togami wrote: > Jarod Wilson wrote: > > While I agree that it isn't necessarily Fedora's responsibility to play > > nice with 3rd-party repositories, I think it ought to be a goal to make > > using 3rd-party repositories as painless as possible. I think there are > > quite a few people who might not use Fedora, if not for the 3rd-party > > repositories. > > > > If there's a fix or functionality addition to a core package needed for > > another package maintained by a 3rd-party, why not push them into the > > core versions? Then people who want software out of the 3rd-party repo > > but don't want core packages replaced get to have their cake and eat it > > too, and 3rd-party repositories don't get bashed as much. Everybody wins, > > no? > > > > Of course, someone within Red Hat would probably have to step up as > > 3rd-party repository liaison to coordinate the effort... But I think its > > something worth doing, for the sake of the Fedora community at large. > > It is an anti-goal of Fedora to promote the proliferation of arbitrary > mixes of 3rd party repositories as the standard way of using Fedora. A > central goal of Fedora is collaborative development in a centralized > repository. I'm not saying Fedora should promote arbitrary mixes of 3rd-party repositories, just that there aren't really any good reasons not to cooperate with them, at least on some level. If repository X needs an updated libfoo to build application bar that tons of users want, why not update Core's libfoo? I suppose bugzilla is the place to log such requests right now, but many don't get addressed in a very timely fashion, leading to 3rd-party replacement packages and/or simply no longer bothering to log such request. > For this reason it is untenable to expect or suggest Red > Hat to explicitly coordinate with 3rd party repositories. Perhaps my use of "coordinate" wasn't the best. Strike "coordinate the effort" and replace with "maintain an open and active, bi-directional line of communication". There are several large 3rd-party repositories with a wealth of experience, so why not leverage them more? Fedora itself is definitely in the driver's seat, but why ignore directions from 3rd-party repositories, simply because they're 3rd-party? > Your post is > also problematic in completely ignoring potential legal implications of > an official relationship between Fedora and 3rd party repositories. Okay, so don't make it an official relationship. (Can anyone say "livna"?). Of course, IANAL, but I don't see any legal problem with fixing or updating core libs/packages that are already in the distro, so long as it isn't adding mp3 support or the like. > Users have an option of using 3rd party software, but the responsible > party for dealing with problems shifts in such cases. > > If you have concerns about individual packages, please file bugs in Red > Hat Bugzilla. Changes can be made to individual Core/Extras packages > are usually general bug fixes and enhancements. It is wrong to expect > Fedora to make special concessions only to work around problems > introduced by 3rd parties. If it is the right thing to do in general > cases, then it is proper to make changes to Core/Extras. I'm not talking so much about problems introduced by 3rd-parties as I am about problems/deficiencies uncovered by 3rd-parties, i.e., fixing packages in Core in a timely fashion to eliminate the need of 3rd-party packagers to replace Core components. -- Jarod Wilson jarod@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
pgpIeoIBP7eo6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
