On 10/18/06, Tom 'spot' Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 11:02 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > On 10/18/06, Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Christopher Stone wrote: > > > > > I suggest that we have a comittee (possibly the packaging comittee) > > > create a wiki page which reviews 3rd party repositories for such > > > things as: > > > > IMO, this is outside the scope of the packaging committee's > > mandate/rights/responsibility. > > > > I'd suggest you start a new SIG if you feel so strongly about this subject. > > I would be perfectly happy with this, even If its a one man SIG > consisting of only me. As long as there is a wiki page on the Fedora > wiki which has this information and users can be pointed to this page > to learn about the consequences of installing another repository I > would be happy. > > However, I think it would be better to have a comittee review other > repositories instead of a single person who might be biased such as > myself. I think that if this is as big of a problem as you claim, then it should be rather trivial for you (or someone else motivated) to install a Fedora box, enable the atrpms repo, and start filing bugs if/when things break. I even think it would be more productive to highlight the FC or FE packages that atrpms is providing overrides for, and start a discussion around why these packages exist, and if there exists the possibility to merge the changes into the FC or FE package and retire the atrpms packages. I'm sure that Axel would welcome that discussion, as less packages means less work for him. :)
Fair enough. I will start by filing a bug report against the gtk libs RyeBrye had problems with. I hope this solution works. If it does not, I will re-address this issue here. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
