On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 00:19:39 +0100 (CET), Dag Wieers wrote: > > And why are we discussing this when we wait for official Fedora Extras > > anyway? > > Ok. That would be an acceptable answer. Instead of disputing everything I > say something like this I can live with. Hmm, you didn't even ask about status updates from the Fedora merger front. And as you know, I'm not the fedora.us spokesman, so you would be asking the wrong person. ;) Although, I thought the information in my first reply in this thread was enough of a hint. > Any dates attached to it ? Not being the spokesman of fedora.us or Fedora Extras, I'm not in the know. There is a sporadical flow of information, but no schedule. Only plans. I posted my feelings somewhere else and don't want to repeat that here. > My request is not (necessarily) about packages that are derived from mine. > My query is about being able to follow any development that interest me. > To be able to quickly compare eg. the latest fedora.us SPEC, together with > the latest Mandrake SPEC, PLD SPEC or openpkg SPEC. How often do I need to repeat myself? Such a thing does not exist at fedora.us unlike at rpm.livna.org. The CVS server was never really used for live-development except for a small set of packages. Nobody pushed forward the development of the infrastructure and necessary policies. Either nobody had the time or interest. Or everybody hoped that a miracle would happen and Fedora Project infrastructure would appear much sooner. And as a normal contributor one could follow activity with yum by monitoring the "pending" repository, by watching the UPDATE and PUBLISH queues, and by mirroring the allspecs tarball. > http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/ Which was filled some time this year and has not been used earlier. Similar to bugzilla.atrpms.net, it doesn't seem to be linked at your repository's web site and not at freshrpms.net either. Talking about more transparency... -- Fedora Core release 3 (Heidelberg) - Linux 2.6.9-1.649 loadavg: 1.09 1.76 2.70