On Fri, July 28, 2006 5:52 am, Hans de Goede said: > Clever trick. This is the first post in this thread that has put a smile > on my face :) Nope sorry I'm very much in favor of opensource myself and > have no wish to support / put effort in binary crap. I keep saying > people are not hearing what I'm trying to say, so let me try again: I > don't say we should support it, but deliberately braking it is another > story! Then you haven't heard many of the responses either. There is no need for breakage if the 3rd party repos manage things properly. > Now if the update would get hold back untill that other repo has > packages in place which work around this (putting conflicts in the > relevant packages and an exclude for the xorg server in yum.conf should > do the trick) then we are getting somewhere. Again, this would put the release schedule of Fedora software in the hands of a proprietary vendor. This just can't be the way to go. > My big problem is the attitude that the breaking is somebody elses > problem entirely and the total refusal to think with that other repo > instead of just rampaging forward, breaking many systems and creating a > lot of bad PR in the process. But by and large that isn't the attitude at all. The attitude is that the 3rd party repos should do the work to make sure that their users expierence is acceptable. They have all the tools they need to ensure this. Putting the onus on Fedora developers is just backwards. Sean -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
