Callum Lerwick wrote:
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?
Overlapping repos are fundamentally broken, period.
Then why create overlap?
We've had long
flamewars in the past about how ATrpms freely replaces Fedora packages
making an unsupportable mess.
I think ATrpms pre-dates fedora. Freshrpms certainly did. Do you think
you can retroactively trademark the package names or something?
> Why are we allowing JPackage to pull the
same crap?
Fedora must not make any consessions to allowing JPackage to maintain
overlapping packages in their repos. Because it is brain damaged. Period.
This goes for all external repos, not just JPackage.
Allow? What kind of control do you think you have over other repos that
were providing packages before fedora existed or the earlier versions of
RedHat even had public update repositories? Your choice is to cooperate
or not. The impression I got from the earlier discussions was that you
refused the compromises that would have made consolidating the
repositories acceptable, forked some of the packages from their
pre-existing versions and thus made it next to impossible for users to
get the rest of the content which, for various reasons, you didn't
include. Maybe you see this some other way?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
