[packagers] becoming a packager

[Dag Wieers]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Rex Dieter wrote:

> J Robinson wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Nov 22, 2007 1:22 PM, Dag Wieers <dag at wieers.com <mailto:dag at wieers.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> >     On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, J Robinson wrote:
> >
> >      > Yup, rebuilding mediawiki.src.rpm with epel5 enabled succeeded -- it
> >      > installed ocaml from the epel5 repo in order to build mediawiki.
> >
> >     ocaml is in RPMforge, if you start building packages against EPEL (which
> >     is by design incompatible with other 3rd party efforts) they are not
> >     guaranteed to work with RPMforge.
>
> Dag, stop the FUD please, it's not becoming.  The incompatibility can at least
> currently be described as a 2-way street (and that's being generous, but hey,
> since I'm biased, I'll leave it at that).

EPEL and RPMforge are incompatible. That is no FUD.

EPEL has no interest in other 3rd party repositories which has been stated
a few times in discussions on the EPEL mailinglist by Fedora/Red Hat
people.

RPMforge existed much longer for RHEL/CentOS than EPEL existed, the fact
that EPEL does not care about existing RPMforge users shows how much they
care about compatibility.

You were not present at the FOSDEM 2007 and LinuxTag meetings. There were
possibilities of cooperation, but Fedora only wanted cooperation on their
own terms (and on their own infrastructure and with their own existing
Fedora packages). That was and still is my impression.

You of course may have a different opinion. I will not advise people to
use both RPMforge and EPEL. And I will not advise people that cooperate
with RPMforge to build against an EPEL ocaml (if RPMforge has one as
well).

BTW This still is an RPMforge mailinglist.

-- 
--   dag wieers,  dag at wieers.com,  http://dag.wieers.com/   --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]