[Proposal] Ring-based Packaging Policies
rc040203 at freenet.de
Tue Feb 17 17:08:35 UTC 2015
On 02/17/2015 05:54 PM, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> Le mardi 17 février 2015 à 17:39 +0100, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :
>> On 02/17/2015 05:18 PM, Petr Pisar wrote:
>>> Why not to create a new repository with reduced policy as
>>> Stephen proposed with the one-way dependency rule (between current
>>> Fedora and the new easy-for-beginners repository)?
>> Because this would establish a 2-class society, with double
>> standards standards and so on.
>> Also RH and other distros history repeatedly has told the lesson
>> such will not fly and are doomed to fail.
> It seems to have been working just fine in RPMFusion, where the free
> and nonfree repositories have different standards for inclusion, and
> where packages in nonfree can depend on packages in free, but not the
> other way.
RPMFusion working fine? Sorry, but I vehemently disagree with this.
Many of their packages are of low quality and their infrastructure is
more dead than alive.
> History doesn't seem to unambiguously prove what you think it does,
> but then I guess you can always argue that those examples just haven't
> failed yet. ;)
I am referring to "RHL + Powertools (?)" (A historic desaster) and many
of these distro life cycle extending attempts (RHL had one I don't even
recall the name; Recently SuSE's Everlast went down).
More information about the devel