2006/2/22, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > Am Mittwoch, den 22.02.2006, 14:56 -0500 schrieb Eric Mesa: > >[...] > > The reason for my starting the thread was the fact that there are a > > myriad of repos out there for those of us who need (or "need" - > > depending on your point of view) access to non-free software. They > > overlap in a lot of places, but some have one app that others don't. > > That's true. > > > However, mixing repos who don't work together can have bad results. > > Yep. > > > So I was hoping we could unite them in, > > Well, "unite them" sounds like a good plan -- the current situation > creates a lot of confusing. Some users wandered off to Ubuntu due to > that. But there are some things that you can't unite. So it probably > needs to be a "unite what can be united". > > At least freshrpms and livna are close together regarding politics and > packages -- both do not replace or update packages from Core or Extras > (normally). Maybe it's time to forget all the old flamewars that > happened years ago and merge the two. Anvil, thias, what's your opinion? > I'm, willing to act as middle man for "merging discussions" if those two > accept me (Disclaimer: I contribute to livna, but I was not involved in > the flamewars in the pre-fedora.us days -- only some of those that > happened later). > > newrpms: che has a package under review from extras. He also does not > replace things from extras or livna normally. I'm optimistic that we > could get him involved in merge plans, too. > > atrpms and dag/dries/rpmforge: Depends on them. They currently replace > packages from Core and Extras -- that's necessary to achieve some things > they do (things Extras and Livna don't do), but a lot of people don't > like that. But there is no reason why they can't joins a merged > "Non-Free-Repo" (Let's call it "Repo-Which-Must-Not-Be-Named") and > continue the other stuff that does not harmonizes separately. But that's > probably more work for them with a small gain for them. Correct me if > I'm wrong. > > I didn't follow the other repos to closely -- maybe someone else can > comment on those? > > >say, the Fedora-non-free and > > Fedora-tricky-licensing repos so that they could work together and > > maintain package consistency, etc. > > We probably can't do the above (and shouldn't do that) under the name > "Fedora". Proprietary software (like the drivers from ati and nvidia) > and "Patent Encumbered" software is a no go for Fedora afaics. > > But yes, maybe we could to a "Fedora Extras Non-Free" for things like > - the Firmware for ipw2100 and ipw2200 > - stuff like povray -- open-source, but not "free" (see > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-February/msg00191.html > for details) > > CU > thl > -- > Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list > well id be happy if just planetccrma would be slowly merged into extras... the main blocker seems to be the realtime kernel module as far as i can see. actually from the other repos only a few packages are missing that could be contributed to extras and youd be nearly there. besides some kernel modules atrpms provides e.g. regards, rudolf kastl -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
