Fedora Project launches Pre-Extras

[Dag Wieers]

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Michael Schwendt wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 03:08:30 +0100 (CET), Dag Wieers wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 01:49:49 +0100 (CET), Dag Wieers wrote:
> > > 
> > > > It's unfortunate, but it's irrelevant to the discussion. There's no good 
> > > > way to handle it, if freshrpms decided to use 2 as release tag (release + 
> > > > 1), my package would always be upgraded by freshrpms.
> > > 
> > > That would be something entirely different.
> > > 
> > > We're discussing dist tags and repo tags. A pure release bump based
> > > upgrade between repositories which are advertised as compatible or
> > > belonging under the same umbrella, is even more unfortunate and
> > > unnecessary.
> > 
> > Well, it is not a good argument for getting rid of the repotag, it's a 
> > good argument to have freshrpms use the same repotag Dries and I have 
> > settled to. But again, that's up to Matthias.
> 
> You continue to jump between "release tag", "dist tag" and "repo tag"
> as can be seen in above quote.

Hmm, I use it where it is appropriate. If you're considering to drop 
repotag I have to talk about the release tag hypothetically without the 
repotag.


> > If you consider freshrpms a seperate repository for that matter, it would 
> > not make a difference with or without repotag.
> 
> Well, is it separate or is is not?

It's build from the same source, which is an improvement even though we're 
not using the same repotag. It's not seperate regarding compatibility (you 
can safely mix), but it acts seperately because of the repotag in your 
example. Again a consequence of the freedom of the packager, but an 
improvement from build and compatibility perspective.


> > So you're looking at it with your authoritative glasses and ignoring the 
> > reality of different repositories.
> 
> Let us not wind up in off-topic talk. You cannot read my mind. You do
> not know whether I ignore anything. My scope is broader than you seem to
> think. It's just that I have different views with regard to a community
> project and collaboration and coordination between contributors from the
> community. I've learned some things with my own contributions at
> fedora.us, getting to know how other contributors think and what they
> hope for. Please be at least a little bit more conservative. The way you
> jump to conclusions or use your fedora.us related bitterness to drift
> away into personal attacks, just because I disagree, doesn't suit you.
> Fedora Extras is not me alone. Quite some discussions (and possibly also
> controversies) are still in front of us.

That's fine. But Fedora Extras will most likely not need repotags, while 
we're discussing the usefulness of 3rd party repositories.

I don't mind if Fedora Extras does not use them, but I do mind when Seth 
or you are saying it 'pollutes', is branding, is a hack, does not have a 
purpose or anything else that has been misleading to the general public.

 
> >  Besides this scheme allow us to have an upgrade path even when 
> > the distribution changes name. Something you brought up yourself as an 
> > example.
> 
> I just mentioned the rh90 -> rhfc1 tag ugliness, a work-around which
> is still in use. The fedora.us jump from rh90 to 1 was criticised by a
> few people, too. 1.fc1 instead is no different.

Thanks. Each scheme will have advantages and disadvantages. None of my 
users have complained so far and we've explained why it is there. So it's 
strange that outsiders have a problem with it, while everyone using it 
don't care :)


> > > I'm not convinced that dist tags and repo tags are "required".
> > 
> > Well, that's obvious from your replies. How is Fedora Extras going 
> > to make sure packages get updated between releases ?
> 
> We will find out whether there will be a policy for that or whether
> packagers will have the freedom to ensure it themselves. You don't see
> any significant problems in letting packagers maintain release bumps
> correctly, do you?

No, of course not. I'm not forcing a policy on anyone, I'm just defending 
my right to have a policy even when misleading information has been given 
and some people just repeat that.

The reason Matthias is not using the 'rf' tag is because I'm not forcing 
anyone. The most important fact was having the building merged, the 
repotag is in no way as important as that change alone.


> > > > I'm sure you agree that disttags are necessary. Recently fedora.us decided 
> > > > to introduce them almost 2 years after we had the same discussion 
> > > > and it was rejected. Nice to see some improvements.
> > > 
> > > Eh? What? Where? How? What improvements? "Recently"? What are you
> > > talking about? Is that a strange attempt at weird rhetoric?
> > 
> > Hehe, sorry, only the Freshrpms packages in pre-FC3 have disttags, I'm 
> > sure this will be fixed in time because, good god, it also contains 
> > repotags (or as Seth calls it 'branding').
> 
> Still no idea what you are referring to here, and losing interest.

http://fedoraproject.org/pre-extras/3/i386/js-1.5-0.rc6a.1.fc2.fr.i386.rpm
http://fedoraproject.org/pre-extras/3/i386/xplanet-1.0.1-0.fdr.5.2.i386.rpm

Kind regards,
--   dag wieers,  dag at wieers.com,  http://dag.wieers.com/   --
[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]