On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 06:03:15PM -0600, Patrick Barnes wrote: > On Friday 31 March 2006 11:34, Demond James <dnjinc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Axel Thimm wrote: > > > But then hell breaks loose and people accuse JoeBob of forking > > > fedora, when all he wanted to do is either provide decent > > > mirrors (local or not) for his users or additional repos. Having > > > to replace fedora-release to do that results in for example: > > > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JohnMahowald/ATrpmsWarning > > > > What would help stop the propaganda Axel is descriptions of the > > changes that were made to these core packages. As it stands now I > > do not want to replace the core packages with your packages simply > > because I don't now what changes you made. Let me decided if I > > want that added feature. Other than that great job and great > > repo. Thank you! > > > > When you start changing packages from Core, it really is a fork by > definition. Replacing Core packages is not and will never be > considered a good or safe practice, and will never be supported by > the Fedora Project. [...] Oh, no, not that thread again. Just to cut a long story short, please show me one 3rd party repo that doesn't have a package replaced. You'll find in the archives, that not only ATrpms, but freshrpms, dag, livna, kde-redhat (by definition), planetccrma, newrpms, <your repo here> have done so. So by your's and John's definition these repos should all be called forks of fedora. > The fedora-release package is the single package that defines the > installed release. Any file that is unique and critical to a > particular release is not out of place in that package. The > repository configurations are arguably release-agnostic, and could > be reasonably split into a different package, but only for reasons > of maintainability. > If you want to change the existing files, tell users and give them > the option. If you want to add new repositories, provide a separate > package. It's great that we agree, as this is exactly the mode ATrpms is working ... My personal view: ATrpms is trying to add value to fedora (and RHEL), and I wonder why there have to be so many alienations towards ATrpms. People of the fedora community complain about market loss to Ubuntu due to non-coherent community of fedora and semi-official statements like the one in the wiki just divide the fedora community further. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpKlGqtyfzoa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
