On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:58:34 +0100, Denis Leroy wrote: > Horst H. von Brand wrote: > > > > [..] > > > >> I *think* the point he is trying to make is that some people don't > >> like 3rd party repositories overriding Fedora Extras without good > >> reason and some other people dont like Fedora Extras maintainers > >> adding packages in Fedora Extras without first consulting with the 3rd > >> party repositories. > > > > Ludicrous. That would give *third* parties, unrelated ones at that, a sort > > of veto power. > > +1. > > It seems to me if a conflict exists between FE and a third-party repo, > this is by definition the problem of the 3rd party repo maintainer, > since nothing was preventing him/her to either submit the conflicting > package into FE in the first place, or at least review the FE submission. > > And on the subject of a wiki page with available 3rd party repositories, > it certainly should only contain repos that are *designed* to be add-on > repos over FC and FE, in that order. There's still no reason to release partial dependency-chains into Fedora Extras after less than 24 hours between a sudden upgrade to a beta and the approval. That puts FE into a situation where we don't offer a working set of packages as long as the remaining packages are still under review, but which increases the risk that it breaks something our users have either built themselves or downloaded from 3rd party repos. At fedora.us we've always tried to publish complete dependency chains. We should realise that FE is not "complete" (and won't ever be complete with regard to the somet things). We should not make it more difficult for 3rd party packagers, who have joined FE already, to transfer more of their stuff to FE gradually while continuing to maintain their own repos. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
