On Thu, 2005-12-29 at 12:11 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On 12/29/05, Brian Long <brilong(a)cisco.com> wrote:
> Nope. I don't know that it's up to me or the Fedora project to contact
> each third-party repo maintainer when Fedora implements a change. I'm
> asking Fedora to consider a change.
And I'm telling you...since you used atrpms and freshrpms as the
motivating example.. you should go out and contact those maintainers
about how they feel about YOUR idea to make this default. Shoving a
new default into Core tool configs that is meant as a constraint on
interaction with 3rd party repos is ill-advised without the input from
the maintainers of those repos. For you to suggest that the 3rd party
maintainer's opinion doesn't hold significant weight shows an absolute
lack of understanding of the history of this project's relationship
with 3rd party maintainers.
There is no need to attack people personally in this discussion. I
figured this discussion would be healthy, but I think you're crossing
the line. I never said 3rd party maintainer's opinion didn't carry
weight; I said it's not the job of the Fedora development team to get
buy-in from every 3rd party maintainer before making a change. There is
a big difference between the two.
>If Fedora decides to implement that
> change for the "protection" of their users and repos, the third party
> repos would shoot themselves in the foot if they started scripting
> around the protection! IMHO, they would lose credibility.
Considering that you are having problems with repos that already feel
they have a good reason to overwrite Core packaging decisions... i
think you making too many damned assumptions about what 3rd party
maintainers think. I don't care how many users think protectbase on
by default is a good idea. If 90% of the users are like you and trying
to protect themselves against atrpm overwrites.. you better make damn
sure that atrpms is going to respect protectbase's default status. We
aren't solving any problems by turning this on by default unless the
3rd party maintainers that most users have problems with agree to
respect the config. As an mythtv atrpms package user, i would think
you would want to make sure Axel was behind this idea. In fact I say
any user of mythtv packages from atrpms loses credibility in this
discussion if they do not seek out Axel's opinion on that matter. The
last thing you want as a user of any atrpms packages is MORE
hostibility between this project and atrpms... because its just going
to end up making it more difficult for you as the user.
Why are you cussing? Does it make you feel you get your point across?
I'm not trying to make assumptions about the 3rd party maintainers. I'm
relying on the folks familiar with Fedora development to flush out my
idea, riddle it with holes, flush it down the toilet or accept it. It's
just a discussion topic, nothing meant to piss people off or start a
flame war. Jeez! :-)
/Brian/
--
Brian Long | | |
IT Data Center Systems | .|||. .|||.
Cisco Linux Developer | ..:|||||||:...:|||||||:..
Phone: (919) 392-7363 | C i s c o S y s t e m s