On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 06:21:48 -0500, Erik LaBianca wrote:
I like that distinction. However, I don't think unowned
directories,
incorrect file permissions or lack of macros in paths qualify as show
stoppers.
Depending on root's umask, unowned directories would be created
inaccessibly for ordinary users. Incorrect file permissions (e.g.
missing %defattr) would give an arbitrary ordinary user write-access to
those files. And when such issues are found during QA, why not fix them?
Why is fedora.us / extras held to a higher standard of quality
than redhat themselves?
Because Red Hat have an established distribution already. Fedora.us is in
the process of building a reliable base which other packages can build
upon.
There is plenty of time to improve packages with
time, and getting stuck on perfection before passing QA is going to
prevent anyone from posting or reviewing packages.
Again, *when* such issues are discovered during the review phase,
why not fix them sooner rather than later?
Instead, QA is going to be attractive to some poor sysadmin who
needs
amavis (or one of the other 300+ packages sitting in the QA queue), and
wants to know it will work well with fedora, and that it will upgrade
cleanly in the future. The same guy who right now points his yum.conf at
atrpms, dagrpms and freshrpms because THEY have packages that he can
download NOW, and usually work.
But if he's entirely happy with those repositories, he doesn't have any
interest in getting the same software included in another repository.
He must recognize the additional benefits of an open community project
like fedora.us or Fedora Extras before he would choose to support it.
--