[packagers] becoming a packager

[J Robinson]

Hello, All:

I'm carefully not stepping into this epel/rpmforge debate, but wanted to
mention that at the time I talked about using the EPEL ocaml package, it was
because (for some reason) I thought ocaml wasn't packaged in rpmforge.

I see now that it is, and will continue with rpmforge for now. I have no
opinion about epel! :)

I do look forward to hearing back about my 'Setting up an rpmforge/rpmrepo
dev environment' posting :)

best
jrobinson

On Nov 29, 2007 2:19 PM, Dag Wieers <dag at wieers.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Rex Dieter wrote:
>
> > Dag Wieers wrote:
> >
> > > Rex, do you seriously believe that a small community of 10 people is
> going
> > > to fix the incompatibilities created by 140+ people. (even more if you
> > > count the Fedora Extras in total)
> >
> > Baby steps.  Solutions don't happen by themselves or overnight.  If you
> choose
> > not to take part in the process, it'll never happen.
>
> And vice versa.
>
> We have implemented fixes to add compatibility with Fedora Extras and
> EPEL. Thanks for implying we don't !
>
>
> > Seriously, if you put in as much effort into bridging the gap, and
> helping
> > work toward repo compatibility as you complain about it, I think we'd be
> a
> > long way toward the issue being settled.
>
> Really ? I seriously doubt it. First of all, I did not complain. (Thanks
> for implying that I did though.)
>
> Tell me why exactly does it fall on my shoulders, and not yours ?
>
> The problem is not that I am not doing it, or that you are not doing it.
> The problem is that on the EPEL mailinglist/meetings there was a
> deliberate voice to NOT do it.
>
>
> > > Either Fedora/EPEL officially adds this to their policy or it will not
> > > happen.
> >
> > Sigh, cooperation and compatibility with other repos *is* Fedora/EPEL
> > policy(*).
>
> But nothing is actively done about it.
>
>
> > For reasons beyond my rational comprehension, you continue to
> > choose to disregard this fact of Fedora/EPEL policy, which is the basis
> of my
> > pleas to stop spreading misinformation otherwise.
>
> What misinformation ?
>
> I told another person who is helping with RPMforge, that he should use the
> RPMforge ocaml package and not the EPEL ocaml package. Because both
> repositories are incompatible we advise NOT to build against EPEL
> packages.
>
>
> > Now, I know I'm probably not going to change *your* mind (or others who
> who
> > have their mind set already), so this will likely be my last comment on
> this
> > topic here.
>
> > (*)  If you can identify individuals in Fedora that do not adhere to
> this
> > policy/guideline, please point them out, and I will personally see them
> > bitch-slapped.
>
> The problem, dear Rex, is that nobody in the EPEL community is using the
> RPMforge repository and therefor how would they know or care about any
> compatibility.
>
> And I do not have the time nor the resources to do it. I am swamped with
> work. (self-employed, and spending 8h of spare time into the project
> every day)
>
> But you apparently do have the time, so feed me with improvements and
> fixes and I will implement them if they make sense.
>
> In fact, my clamav packages,  obsolete/provide stuff to make it work with
> EPEL (afaik). Other packages that are different as well. But I cannot
> single-sidedly fix all incompatibilities. And there has been no effort
> from your side either.
>
> --
> --   dag wieers,  dag at wieers.com,  http://dag.wieers.com/   --
> [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
> _______________________________________________
> packagers mailing list
> packagers at lists.rpmforge.net
> http://lists.rpmforge.net/mailman/listinfo/packagers
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rpmforge.net/pipermail/packagers/attachments/20071129/142b6fa3/attachment.html