Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Same here. No conflicts existed until fedora packagers duplicated
packages that already existed in well-known repositories and forked
them instead of mirroring.
A cross distribution package repository is always going to be
different from a distribution specific repository.
I don't see how that is relevant, given that the pre-existing
repositories mostly/all have added version-specific instances for each
fedora release.
Third party repositories follow their own licensing and packaging
policies which are different even they target a specific distribution.
This is what you fail to understand.
The only parts where this matters are those where there is incompatible
duplication within the fedora repository. What I specifically fail to
understand is why those packages that have been duplicated could not
have been done in a way that the same contents would be acceptable in
both repositories. Why, for example, couldn't the changes you say
fedora needs as a dependency for openoffice be included in the jpackage
repository for that fedora release and maintained as exact copies?
Could you share some amusing anecdotes about how the existing
repositories refused to make these changed versions available when you
tried to provide them to maintain complete compatibility?
Refer to list archives in the specific repositories or past discussions
even in this list. Giving you "amusing anecdotes" isn't my job.
Those discussions left me with the impression that no actual effort was
made to stay compatible with any other repository in spite of knowing
that you don't and probably won't ever provide equivalent contents. I
was hoping to hear otherwise.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
