Johnny Hughes wrote:
I would think that for the vast majority of packages, we could work
a viable definition and build them in one place. That one place could
be any of the major players ... and without a good reason, we should
make assignments of master repos for individual packages.
I'm not so sure about this. However, what I think many people (myself
included) do agree on are your following points:
It is not good for users to have incompatible versions of packages
hanging around, unless there is a specific reason (IMHO).
We should at least, in my opinion, agree on a consolidated group of
I am not trying to be negative, but "it seems that" EPEL
that they will be the defacto standard in this space ...
I don't think that's the case; I think users will decide that.
Yet it seems that a new player comes into this space and all the
people are supposed to stop what they are doing and start doing things
the new way.
It's not all that "new"...not if you have been involved in FE, which is
already quite a mature project in some ways, even if it was a relatively
late starter compared to some other efforts. (And remember that some
parts of FE were preceded by fedora.us).
It just seems backwards to me is all ... maybe I am missing
You're missing the fact that although EPEL may "on paper" have 0 users
right now, it is not coming from nowhere out of the blue: it is an
extension of Fedora Extras which is a very popular project. The repos
you mention have lots of users, true (I assume), but they have a notably
small group of "owners". So if you add together the *collective* time
that has gone into Fedora Extras from the many contributors, it's at
least possible that it may already exceed that of (Dag + Axel + Matthias
+ Dries + ...) But anyway, arguing over numbers isn't the point. It's
probably fair to say that what 3rd party EL repos really have going for
them is deep technical knowledge and extensive real world deployment
experience. What EPEL may lack in that area, it probably makes up for in
the community/participation aspects *that already exist* and
infrastructure. In that specific sense (and only that sense), some of
the 3rd parties may have had it *RELATIVELY* (I don't mean to belittle
the efforts in the slightest) easy, because those owners have had the
freedom to do what they wanted in their repos without having to decide
by committee. Now, the end results are good (and one can argue that's
all that matters), but to be fair, that acknowledgement should work the
other way too, and the inherited experience & infrastructure of FE in
EPEL ought to be at least acknowledged.