On Thursday 29 December 2005 20:53, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>And generate more support issues with the 3rd party repos. Yum
is
>already creating support headaches with the --enable=foo switch, and
>having this being the default will not make it easier on us.
>
>Do you want 3rd parties to support Fedora Core? Then consider whether
>you want to make is easier or more difficult for those repositores to
>operate properly.
I dont use them so I am neutral on that. Only talking about users here.
I'm in the position of being both a user and a contributor to one of said
3rd-party repositories[1]. I definitely still want to support Fedora Core.
>And don't forget: We're talking about fixing something
that isn't
>broken ...
Getting bug reports based on packages being replaced isnt exactly a non
issue.
Axel, I have to agree with Rahul here. While it isn't "broken", per se, its
definitely an issue. There are quite a few people who are rather adverse to
the way ATrpms, if enabled in full, replaces core packages, but still want to
use a number of ATrpms packages. I know that (at least most of ;) the reasons
for ATrpms replacing core packages are pure, at least from ATrpms' point of
view, but there's something to be said for only upgrading what *must* be
upgraded to add a new program.
I think the majority of users who complain about ATrpms replacing core
packages are what I'd call power-users, who are bright enough to enable
protectbase for themselves, so protectbase off by default sounds reasonable
to me. I think it gives those power-users what they want, and minimizes
headaches for 3rd-party repo maintainers from sheeple who just want an mp3
player (or mythtv ;).
[1] Disclaimer: I do a bit of packaging work for ATrpms.
--
Jarod Wilson
jarod(a)wilsonet.com