On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:42:32 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 07:55:08PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 19:07:14 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> Pushing alternative concepts would be better. What is your list of
> disagreements with fedora.us' policies? Have you posted a complete
> list before? Maybe you have a pointer into the list archives?
Others and I tried to in March/April. fedora.us' archives is full of
that and the reaction.
It's a pain to find relevant postings in 1400 (or such) postings.
So, a list does not exist?
> With "not willing to compromise" I refer also to
recent controversies,
> such as Red Hat's move from redhat-release-9 to fedora-release-1. Asking
> for a redhat-release-10 package or changing the disttag from "rh9" (Red
> Hat Linux 9) to "rh9.1" (Fedora Core 1) are pretty much unfortunate
> suggestions. "rhfc1" is a hack, too.
No, it's not. I hope you will understand the issue and see that
Fernando delivered a magnificent solution compatible with rpm version
to Before Christ. Even one that I highly recommend for fedora.us.
Why "rhfc1" and not "vfc1"? Why "rh" == "Red Hat"
in the disttag
when the distribution does not have the name "Red Hat Fedora Core"
but just "Fedora Core"?
> Or your package release versioning scheme: Why don't your
packages
> start at release 0 like fedora.us' packages do? So when a package is
> included in Fedora Core or Fedora Extras, by default it would
> override the lower release package in the 3rd party repository.
Look closer,
How close should that be? To realize that you decide on a case by case
basis whether to add the "0." prefix or not?
That prefix should be used consistently, because you cannot assume whether
a package will appear in Fedora Core (Extras, Alternatives, Development,
Testing, whatsoever), e.g. apt-0.5.5cnc7-36.rh9.1.at.src.rpm
--
Btw, Cc to so many lists is a bad idea, since rpm-list(a)freshrpms.net is
not open for non-subscribers.