On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 06:03:15PM -0600, Patrick Barnes wrote:
On Friday 31 March 2006 11:34, Demond James <dnjinc(a)wowway.com>
wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> > But then hell breaks loose and people accuse JoeBob of forking
> > fedora, when all he wanted to do is either provide decent
> > mirrors (local or not) for his users or additional repos. Having
> > to replace fedora-release to do that results in for example:
> >
> >
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JohnMahowald/ATrpmsWarning
>
> What would help stop the propaganda Axel is descriptions of the
> changes that were made to these core packages. As it stands now I
> do not want to replace the core packages with your packages simply
> because I don't now what changes you made. Let me decided if I
> want that added feature. Other than that great job and great
> repo. Thank you!
>
When you start changing packages from Core, it really is a fork by
definition. Replacing Core packages is not and will never be
considered a good or safe practice, and will never be supported by
the Fedora Project. [...]
Oh, no, not that thread again. Just to cut a long story short, please
show me one 3rd party repo that doesn't have a package
replaced. You'll find in the archives, that not only ATrpms, but
freshrpms, dag, livna, kde-redhat (by definition), planetccrma,
newrpms, <your repo here> have done so. So by your's and John's
definition these repos should all be called forks of fedora.
The fedora-release package is the single package that defines the
installed release. Any file that is unique and critical to a
particular release is not out of place in that package. The
repository configurations are arguably release-agnostic, and could
be reasonably split into a different package, but only for reasons
of maintainability.
If you want to change the existing files, tell users and give them
the option. If you want to add new repositories, provide a separate
package.
It's great that we agree, as this is exactly the mode ATrpms is
working ...
My personal view: ATrpms is trying to add value to fedora (and RHEL),
and I wonder why there have to be so many alienations towards
ATrpms. People of the fedora community complain about market loss to
Ubuntu due to non-coherent community of fedora and semi-official
statements like the one in the wiki just divide the fedora community
further.
--
Axel.Thimm at
ATrpms.net