On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 10:48 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > I wonder how this discussion would go if we did s/Jpackage/DAG/ (or > AT, or RPMForge, or any other external repository) and s/jpp/dag/. I > mean, honestly, how is the situation really all that different? Nearly all of the java packages in Core are ongoing ports of JPackage. At least some of the Core Java Packagers are the JPackage packagers. They make changes to the JPackage package and then copy the changes back to Core. As Nicolas has expressed, JPackage is Core's immediate upstream for these packages. Core has adopted the JPackage methodology because they have intelligent, well thought out rules that don't conflict with the distro. So JPackage _is_ special. The question for me is not whether there is a special relationship but what goals we actually want to meet for users and developers using our packages and which of those goals need to map into changes to the Package Naming Guidelines and which can be achieved in alternate fashion. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
