On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 05:41:57AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:11:25 -0500, William M. Quarles wrote: > > OK, someone pointed this out to me: > > > > <http://www.fedora.us/wiki/RepositoryMixingProblems> > > > > Join us or we'll start reproducing your software in your place anyways. > > Does this not scream arrogance, bureacracy, and monopoly to anybody > > else? Does this not seem very Microsoft-ish? > > You try to read between the lines and end up with something which is > not what the page tries to point out. It makes your thoughts and your > choice of words appear unnecessarily aggressive. Let's get some original quotes, Michael does have a very poor memory, it seems. http://www.fedora.us/wiki/RepositoryMixingProblems?version=1 | The Fedora Linux project has made a decision that we will NOT | cooperate with other repositories due to maintain cross-repository | compatibilty because it is unmaintainable for several reasons: (Note: this specific versioned entry was deleted from the wiki after I quoted the above some time ago ...) http://lists.freshrpms.net/pipermail/freshrpms-list/2003-November/006430.html | I would assert that the alliances of 3rd party repositories that | have tried to form in the recent past are not sustainable in the | long term, for the same controversial reasons that fedora.us | rejected cooperation with those entities earlier this year. > [....] > I don't understand this last paragraph, I'm afraid. And I don't see > anyone at fedora.us trying to taking "every package that every other > repository makes". http://lists.freshrpms.net/pipermail/freshrpms-list/2003-February/002997.html | These packages would be vital to actually attract users to the | project. | More users would attract more attention, and perhaps more | developers would join us. Please help me convert Matthias' | FreshRPMS to the Fedora naming scheme. > Spend some time thinking about inter-repository coordination and > scalability of inter-repository dependencies. People have thought about > it before. ... and made very valuable contributions to the naming scheme which were dropped simply because they favoured multiple repo setups (w/o blocking a single repo setup). > Present a complete guide on how to solve inter-repository > collaboration, You mean like the efforts in spring 2003 where every single submission to the docs wrt interoperability went to /dev/null? That's a good tactic, let the opponents Bang Their Harts Against Some Mad Bugger's Wall (TM). -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgphF1pTKPLsw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
