I've got to ask, how do you come up with these quotes so quickly and readily? Where everybody forgets, you always seem to remember.
Peace, William
Axel Thimm wrote:
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).
