Fostering Cooperation (was Yum and EXTRAS)

[Robin Laing]

Michael Schwendt wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 09:34:06 +0100, Andy Green wrote:
> 
> 
>>|>(The idea in the link above that the solution to multiple repos
>>|>is that there should only be one uber-repo, and that other guys should
>>|>"submit" packages for inclusion in the uber-repo is unfortunate).
>>|
>>| What makes it "unfortunate"?
>>
>>It comes over like a land-grab.  "Cooperation is
>>impossible"/submit/resistance is futile does not help.
> 
> 
> Reading between the lines is counter-productive and is one source of
> misunderstandings. The page does not claim that cooperation would be
> "impossible". You quoted a paragraph yourself, which explains where
> fundamental problems are seen. The bottom of the page also comments on
> users' preferences, such as the desire to get as many add-ons as possible
> from a single place.
> 
 From a user point of view, a single repository isn't necessary if you 
are using yum or apt with a GUI front end such as yumi was in FC1. 
That is if the default yum.conf is actually setup correctly. 
Remember, there are many applications or add-ons that I really doubt 
will ever be in the Extra's for whatever reason.  mp3's is just one 
example.  There is a requirement for other repositories.

Cooperation is necessary to make Fedora as easy or easier to use than 
the major OS.  The repositories must work towards a common base if 
this is to occur.

I have heard it so many times from people on other lists that say they 
tried Linux but could not find any software that they were looking 
for.  Remember, many new users don't know about yum or apt or CLI to 
get applications.

> 
>>| Have you ever before thought about how exactly collaboration between
>>| multiple repositories could work? If so, care to share some thoughts?
>>
>>Yeah.  Have you thought about extending RPM?
> 
> 
> An extended/enhanced RPM is _not_ something we have at the moment. It's
> not something that was available when Fedora at fedora.us was discussed.
> It's not ready. Hence it doesn't solve any problem. It doesn't remove the
> need for fine-grained packaging policies either, which extend up to the
> spec-file level.
> 

Extending RPM is an option if it can allow for customization that some 
would like or demand.  For some people, RPM just isn't the right 
option, nor is Fedora as they prefer much more customization.

For the repositories that don't want to cooperate with the base 
standard, then they must make it clear to users that they don't and 
make their packages show this.  They should also provide a easy method 
to backout of their repository if a user so decides to.  I say this 
from experience.

-- 
Robin Laing