On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:44:26 -1000, Chris Stark wrote: > 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. They do, they do. It's people from the community, who judge whether a package will be included or not. But this is done prior to release. Else a package or upgrade (!), which is not good enough, would need to be removed after release when users criticize the packagers for releasing something which was not ready. And *you* could approve packages, too: http://tinyurl.com/4nxrw Do any of the submitted packages interest you? Or are you not courageous enough to take responsibility for approving a package? No, this is not about packaging something up and letting the community find out whether it breaks something. This is about pre-release QA. Packagers, who maintain their packages painstakingly, don't depend on as much as QA as others. > No, they shouldn't be responsible for system stability if a 3rd party > package breaks the system. Disclaiming responsibility is fine (and > 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 is this conflicting naming scheme? Fedora.us' package naming guidelines are documented for a very long time, unchanged. They are the result of long mailing-list dicussions. What about the 3rd party repositories? -- Fedora Core release 3 (Heidelberg) - Linux 2.6.9-1.681_FC3 loadavg: 1.00 1.07 1.08
Attachment:
pgpNTMjMRsdfC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
