On Sunday 09 November 2003 06:46 am, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 23:36:43 -0500, Lamar Owen wrote: > > Multiple repositories are healthy, IMO. [snip 8 examples of differences] If a group of repositories wants to get together and make things more compatible, let them. But just because someone has a repository shouldn't force them to 'cooperate' with the packing poo-bah. > > Choice is good. > If you had written "diversity is good", that would be input for further > discussion. But "choice" does not imply "diversity". You're exactly right. Diversity is something that just happens, passive voice in English. Choice is active voice, and implies a responsible decision to choose one over another, or part of one over part of another. Having the freedom to actively choose is the great thing of Free Software. It has nothing to do with diversity, although diversity of opinions is what gives us the freedom to choose. But diversity is powerless without the choice to be diverse. And forced diversity is the worst thing. But that is a hair-splitting semantic difference at best. > > But with choice > > comes responsibility: if you can't handle the responsibility of choosing > > between RPM repos, well, maybe you need to go back to Windows. :-) > Multiple repos create competition. Competition in the area of creating RPM > packages is not good, because package bugs lower the quality of a package. Competition in the area of different desktops is not good, either, using this logic. Some repos repackage stuff built a different way because their packager wants to build it a different way. That is their choice; and users are free to choose to not use them. If two packagers want to work together, then that's great. But they have the choice to not work together. > which aid the packager. Of course, if that is not in his interest, oh > well,... :) Exactly. He has the freedom to scratch his particular itch. And I don't have the right to insist he scratch my itch. If his itch and my itch intersect, and we agree on the same type of scratcher, well, maybe we can split the load. And maybe we can't. And that's Ok either way. > Ultimately, in a community project, there would be enough redundant > resources, so a package could be maintained by someone else while the > original packager is on vacation and a bug-fix or security-fix is > necessary. Assuming a single project is a good thing. I personally like having the multitude from which to choose. Do I wish I could pick and choose pieces? Sometimes; but I have the capability of making the packages themselves cooperate, since I can do my own packaging. > > It might be useful; it might not. > > But if I am going to put up a repository and pay for the bandwidth, then > > I get to set the rules for my repository. > [no comment] Why no comment? -- Lamar Owen Director of Information Technology Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute 1 PARI Drive Rosman, NC 28772 (828)862-5554 www.pari.edu
