On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 01:37:53AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 11:52 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > >>>>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > RC> On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 10:12 -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > > >> The Java packages in Fedora which originally come from the JPackage > > >> repo are the only packages which fall under this exception. And > > >> those packages will always fall under this exception, forever and > > >> ever, amen (or until something dramatic changes). > > > > RC> So Fedora will never have java packages of its own and depend on > > RC> jpp? > > > > I'm having trouble understanding how you get from spot's statement > > above to your conclusion. > > > > There are some packages which come from jpackage and there are some > > that don't. > Then you might be able to explain why > * compatibility to packages from a 3rd party repo such as jpackage are > of any importance to Fedora. > > Except that people ARE mixing jpp-packages with Fedora, just like they > do with freshrpms, atrpms, livna, dribble and many others I don't see > any difference. I don't think it's bad that Fedora cares about compatibility with 3rd party repos, in fact I wish that this kind of mutual cooperation rather extends. As a general rule of thumb I would say that o cooperation enlarges the community and that's one of Fedora's strength, o if it's cheaper for Fedora to cater for compatibility than reinvent the wheel, then why not? o if compatibility obstructs otherwise something and is not worth it can always be dumped, i.e. it is not the highest goal -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpPkxH9W2cWC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
