Re: Fedora Packaging Member forking Fedora/Causing problems with community and users

On 10/18/06, Tom 'spot' Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 11:02 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
> > On 10/18/06, Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Christopher Stone wrote:
> > >
> > > > I suggest that we have a comittee (possibly the packaging comittee)
> > > > create a wiki page which reviews 3rd party repositories for such
> > > > things as:
> > >
> > > IMO, this is outside the scope of the packaging committee's
> > > mandate/rights/responsibility.
> > >
> > > I'd suggest you start a new SIG if you feel so strongly about this subject.
> >
> > I would be perfectly happy with this, even If its a one man SIG
> > consisting of only me.  As long as there is a wiki page on the Fedora
> > wiki which has this information and users can be pointed to this page
> > to learn about the consequences of installing another repository I
> > would be happy.
> >
> > However, I think it would be better to have a comittee review other
> > repositories instead of a single person who might be biased such as
> > myself.
>
> I think that if this is as big of a problem as you claim, then it should
> be rather trivial for you (or someone else motivated) to install a
> Fedora box, enable the atrpms repo, and start filing bugs if/when things
> break. I even think it would be more productive to highlight the FC or
> FE packages that atrpms is providing overrides for, and start a
> discussion around why these packages exist, and if there exists the
> possibility to merge the changes into the FC or FE package and retire
> the atrpms packages. I'm sure that Axel would welcome that discussion,
> as less packages means less work for him. :)

Fair enough.  I will start by filing a bug report against the gtk libs
RyeBrye had problems with.  I hope this solution works.  If it does
not, I will re-address this issue here.