What do we think of this?

Jesse Keating jkeating at redhat.com
Tue Mar 27 18:14:51 UTC 2007


On Tuesday 27 March 2007 13:47:19 Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote:
> Surely it's not in the interests of the 3rd party repos to contribute to
> Fedora breakage.  Right?
>
> Is it *theroetically* possible to have a set of standards that unofficial
> repos could follow to be less likely to break us?  And if so, what
> prevents those standards from being created, and met?
>
> Maybe these are stupid questions -- but I like putting stupid questions on
> the record.

Standards are great, and we can ask that of them, but since we don't allow our 
name to be on it, and we aren't allowed to link to it in any way so long as 
they hold non-legal software, we don't have much recourse for enforcement.

Add to that the implicit problem of two(or more) disconnected repositories.  
When we push updates in Fedora, we can and do break deps in the 3rd party 
repos.  They have to rebuild against what we're publishing as updates before 
their deps are fixed.  For OUR repos, we can prepare all these builds before 
pushing live so that the repos stay consistant.  External parties do not have 
this luxury.  And I'm not about to run repoclosure on N+ 3rd party repos 
before pushing out an update.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/attachments/20070327/ee3c2a6d/attachment.bin 


More information about the advisory-board mailing list