On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 07:51:05 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:17:05 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > > > >> Beg your pardon? How many years has fedora policy forced a horribly > >> fractured 3rd party repository situation > > > > Which policy is that? > > I'm not even sure how to describe it. There's the part about not > admitting that users need things like vendor provided drivers, Sun Java, > VMware, etc. and coordinating with the people that provide them. > There's the part about never coming to terms that the several 3rd party > repositories could agree on to coordinate into one or at least stay in > sync with each other and the core. How does that answer my question? Let me repeat. I've asked what policy it is that "forced a horribly fractured 3rd party repository situation"? I'm not aware of any such policy. The Fedora licensing guidelines are not reponsible for fragmenting the 3rd party repo community. The licensing situation just required that any stuff that cannot be included in the Fedora package collection can only be provided in an external repo. What I observe is that the 3rd party repo people have choosen not to team up for various reasons, some of which are unchanged for several years. Repository mixing problems are still alive and in some cases they are still caused by replacing Fedora core packages. Coordinating beyond the borders of the Fedora Project means extra efforts. There simply is not enough man-power to spend additional time on coordinating between 3rd party packagers. They are occupied with the task of keeping packages in their own repo compatible with eachother. What hasn't changed in several years, expecting individual volunteer packagers to stay informed about a multitude of 3rd party repos and coordinating updates and upgrades for ultimate inter-repo compatibility is still a tall order. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
