Dag Wieers schrieb: > On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> There are afaics (and *please* correct me if I'm wrong) some more big >> differences: > Let's correct then. thx >> - rpmforge wants to (or does already?) build for distributions like Suse >> or SLES (someone indicated that to me in private on IRC some weeks ago) > We do not. Sorry. I thought I read such stuff somewhere on the rpmforge website in the past, but seems I was wrong. And somebody told be that some guys close to rpmforge consider building for SLES9. > [...] > However we are very interested to work together with other packagers as > most of the work is identical. What's more, most of the bug-reports are > identical so it makes much more sense to combine the effort for > bug-tracking and package-development. (tracing patches, security > problems) Then we really should work towards in more co-operations between rpmforge and Extras (and livna). > But now that most RPM community repositories are in control of vendors > (see OpenSuSE and Fedora). There is even less interest to join forces. Well, I think taking to each other is in the interest of most packagers. Maybe a common wiki could help where special pacakge knowledge and patches could be shared. >[...] >>> - rpmforge builds new packages often for several distributions including >> those that are in "Maintenance state" (FC3, FC4 currently); Fedora >> Extras is more conservative here > > What about RHEL2.1 and RHEL3 ? People need a decent subversion for those. > If you apply your current rules to the release of RHEL2.1 or RHEL3 you'd > be providing subversion 0.19 ad 0.90. Very stable and pretty useless ! Well, those people are still on RHEL 2.1 and RHEL3 for some reasons. Probably because kernel, gnome, X, and several other stuff is working quite well for them. So if they don't want newer versions of that stuff -- why should they want a new subversion? But I don't think discussing this further makes much sense. I can see you position and I can understand that point of view, even if it differs from mine. So agreeing to disagree here might be the best here. >[...] CU thl -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
