On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 02:31:06AM -0600, Jeff Vian wrote: > On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 08:33 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 01:14 -0600, Jeff Vian wrote: > > > As I see it, the packagers in charge of fedora.us (aka fedora-extras) > > > refuse to try and build packages that are cross compatible > > "Refuse" is he wrong wording. It's technically impossible to be > > compatible with arbitrary repositories containing competing packages, so > > at least I don't even try to spend/waste time on trying to be > > compatible. You are right, the correct wording was "rejected cooperation": 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. > Dag's suggestion to find a way to write spec files that are smart enough > to be flexible seems a start at making it work, as would consistent > naming and contents of packages. Refusing to consider and try his > suggestion, but instead saying "it won't work" seems to me a "refusal to > try". > > Refusal to make an attempt makes certain that incompatibilities WILL > exist. Exactly the situation of spring 2003. See my other posts refreshing memories in this thread. If the efforts to resists compatibility had been coined into such improving it, this thread would not exist. And unfortunately there are still people sabotaging cooperation of fedora.us and the rest of the world from within fedora.us. I believe most of the current members of fedora.us are ready to switch off the non-mixing manifesto, but a (very) few black sheeps keep them from it. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpglKouwqwTy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
