On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 08:48 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > 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. Let me put it this way: To me, it is a bit bewildering to see a project initially being launched as "integration platform for 3rd parties" to explicitly take one of its "rivals" into consideration as a "special exception" that someone labeled "forever, ... amen". If "Fedora integration" really works out, then we should see "integrated packages" and external 3rd party providing add-on packages, which should be treated as private pleasures of those implementing it. If Fedora wants to take external repos into account, then I'd prefer not to see a singular exception for jpp, but generally applicable rules. Unfortunately, I don't see how this can be implemented nor am I expecting much interest from inside Fedora to address this any time soon. > 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. Probably, only somebody @redcom.com can answer this, but I would not deny this thought. > o less patent encumbered/closed source parts than other repos Patents yes. Wrt. "non-free" I don't see that jpp is substantially different from how livna and other 3rd parties shipping "non-free"/non-OSI compliant package. Wrt. voting, I am undecided, because, to me, the proposal boils down to deciding between two "mediocre compromises": a) Accepting it would mean catering a pragmatical compromise, which isn't necessarily in the Fedora community's long-term interests and which might weaken OpenSource in longer terms. b) Rejecting it would mean insisting on a position that isn't necessarily in RH's nor Fedora's interest wrt. java, technically is hardly resolvable, but would help the "wider community" (3rd parties). I would have voted +1 if I'd sense this proposal to be a short-term compromise and precedence aiming at systematic integration of 3rd parties. Spot's comment lets me think this doesn't apply. Ralf -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
