On 10/18/06, Christopher Stone <chris.stone@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
I have filed over one-hundred and ten (110+) bugs for conflicts between ATrpms and FC/FE repositories. The tracker bug can be found here: http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1028 So let's see what becomes of this. AT should be happy because this is probably over 50% of his packages, so his work load should be cut in half. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
