ATrpms and FC5/RHEL5

[Jarod Wilson]

On Monday 02 January 2006 18:12, Warren Togami wrote:
> Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > While I agree that it isn't necessarily Fedora's responsibility to play
> > nice with 3rd-party repositories, I think it ought to be a goal to make
> > using 3rd-party repositories as painless as possible. I think there are
> > quite a few people who might not use Fedora, if not for the 3rd-party
> > repositories.
> >
> > If there's a fix or functionality addition to a core package needed for
> > another package maintained by a 3rd-party, why not push them into the
> > core versions? Then people who want software out of the 3rd-party repo
> > but don't want core packages replaced get to have their cake and eat it
> > too, and 3rd-party repositories don't get bashed as much. Everybody wins,
> > no?
> >
> > Of course, someone within Red Hat would probably have to step up as
> > 3rd-party repository liaison  to coordinate the effort... But I think its
> > something worth doing, for the sake of the Fedora community at large.
>
> It is an anti-goal of Fedora to promote the proliferation of arbitrary
> mixes of 3rd party repositories as the standard way of using Fedora.  A
> central goal of Fedora is collaborative development in a centralized
> repository.

I'm not saying Fedora should promote arbitrary mixes of 3rd-party 
repositories, just that there aren't really any good reasons not to cooperate 
with them, at least on some level. If repository X needs an updated libfoo to 
build application bar that tons of users want, why not update Core's libfoo? 
I suppose bugzilla is the place to log such requests right now, but many 
don't get addressed in a very timely fashion, leading to 3rd-party 
replacement packages and/or simply no longer bothering to log such request.

> For this reason it is untenable to expect or suggest Red 
> Hat to explicitly coordinate with 3rd party repositories.

Perhaps my use of "coordinate" wasn't the best. Strike "coordinate the effort" 
and replace with "maintain an open and active, bi-directional line of 
communication". There are several large 3rd-party repositories with a wealth 
of experience, so why not leverage them more? Fedora itself is definitely in 
the driver's seat, but why ignore directions from 3rd-party repositories, 
simply because they're 3rd-party?

> Your post is 
> also problematic in completely ignoring potential legal implications of
> an official relationship between Fedora and 3rd party repositories.

Okay, so don't make it an official relationship. (Can anyone say "livna"?). Of 
course, IANAL, but I don't see any legal problem with fixing or updating core 
libs/packages that are already in the distro, so long as it isn't adding mp3 
support or the like.

> Users have an option of using 3rd party software, but the responsible
> party for dealing with problems shifts in such cases.
>
> If you have concerns about individual packages, please file bugs in Red
> Hat Bugzilla.  Changes can be made to individual Core/Extras packages
> are usually general bug fixes and enhancements.  It is wrong to expect
> Fedora to make special concessions only to work around problems
> introduced by 3rd parties.  If it is the right thing to do in general
> cases, then it is proper to make changes to Core/Extras.

I'm not talking so much about problems introduced by 3rd-parties as I am about 
problems/deficiencies uncovered by 3rd-parties, i.e., fixing packages in Core 
in a timely fashion to eliminate the need of 3rd-party packagers to replace 
Core components.

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod at wilsonet.com
-------------- 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/devel/attachments/20060102/e2436d83/attachment-0002.bin