F21 Self Contained Change: Playground repository

Stephen Gallagher sgallagh at redhat.com
Tue Apr 8 17:04:54 UTC 2014

Hash: SHA1

On 04/08/2014 12:24 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>> For now the Playground repository contains both packages that are
>> destined for eventual inclusion into the main Fedora repository
>> and *packages that are never going to make it there.*
> This sounds like a problem and not a feature. Why would packages
> never make it to Fedora, yet be available in this new repository?
> My intent here is to be constructive so my question is genuine. I
> don't believe Fedora should start down the path of a fragmented
> repository structure. It makes sense for RHEL and its software
> channels it can sell support for, but Fedora is different.
> RPMFusion being an exception as it is a legal necessity.

My interpretation here is that there exists plenty of genuinely
open-source software out there for which it will likely never be
possible to package fully according to Fedora's packaging guidelines
due to bundling or similar issues (the obvious example being the
oft-requested Chromium).

Similarly, there are a great many useful Ruby libraries and
applications out there for which unbundling them would be an exercise
in futility. Ask yourself which is more important to most users:
1) My OS is perfectly maintainable by engineers.
2) My OS lets me install the software I need without hassle.

Offering users a slightly-less stringent repository such as this makes

Also "packages that are never going to make it there" should probably
have been phrased more politically: "Even if the reality of the
situation is that perfect adherence to the Fedora packaging guidelines
is infeasible".
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/


More information about the devel mailing list