On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 11:44:26AM -1000, Chris Stark wrote: > I think I have to agree with Mr. Quarles on this one. I don't like the > tone of their page. If Fedora Core is supposed to be a community > project, there should not be a centralized QA process for "acceptible" > packages. The community will decide what works by process of natural > selection. Natural selection doesn't work that way. I'll go for a more, um, punctuated equilibrium approach. Throwing all the repositories together into chaos and hoping it all works just isn't going to be any good. > probably the appropraite thing to do). But undermining other repos by > using conflicting naming systems IS "Microsoft-ish" (and thus utterly > reprehensible) and they should be ashamed of themselves. Where does it say that FE is planning on using a "conflicting naming system"? (Not on the linked-to fedora.us page....) > If fedora.us wants to start including packages that are already > available from FreshRPMs, Dag, etc., they should work with these other > repositories' maintainers and contributors. Linux is about > collaboration. By trying to assert dominance and control over the > community development process, they're only going to alienate users and > developers. There *isn't* a community development process yet. But it's still promised as "really just around the corner real soon now", and I'm willing to wait a little bit longer. There _has_ to be some centralized quality control, just to make sure everything can coexist properly. Mini-repositories operating in a vacuum are, as the page says, inevitably going to have clashes. (This is why DAG, FreshRPMS, et al. are also working on coordinating more closely, which is _also_ a very good thing.) > I've removed them from my repo list just out of principle. Heh. Have fun with that. -- Matthew Miller mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx <http://www.mattdm.org/> Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
