On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 08:39:38AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 07:30 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > > 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, > Neither do I. > > > in fact I wish that this kind of mutual cooperation > > rather extends. > > Exactly this is the point, I am asking: Why explicitly care about jpp? OK, sorry I misunderstood you completely, I read your comments like criticism for cooperation. I can only guess about why jpp is treated "better" than other repos: o one needs to start somewhere o java is a key technology also required for RHEL, so there is vital interest in RH for it. o less patent encumbered/closed source parts than other repos o good quality packaging If I didn't knew better I'd add o good cooperation with the 3rd party maintainers but according to some of Jesse's comments this seems to be less the case (or was, it may have improved since). -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpBPfsu2U1Ej.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
