--- Comment #58 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com> 2014-04-14 10:17:54 CEST
I'm noting that you are raising conditions to actually do the cvssynv despite
that the package is approved. This puts me in an really awkward position, since
some of the design decisions are a direct result of the review, which by now
should be closed(?).
- The all-commented repo file is a direct result of the discussions with
Thorsten Leemhuis, Hans de Goede et al in ,  . For them (and others
including me) this assures that a repository isn't added just because
dropbox-repo is installed. Just a 'enabled=0' is not sufficient for this since
yum and dnf still "sees" it somehow.
- The triggerin is a direct result of Ralf Corsepius, comment #4 and Wolfgang
Ulbrich , comment #16,
- The dropbox-repo icon (only used within the dropbox-repo gui) is not, and
should not be installed as a desktop-icon The "overall" icon for a repository
package like this is the system-config-repo icon.
- The basic idea is to split the package into the core repository + the
metadata. If installing when the repository already is in place the package
will add metadata on top of the repository rather then to conflict/replace
None of these issues are IMHO clean bugfixes, they are more like how this
should work or not. Such objections should be raised during the review, not six
weeks(!) after it. Otherwise, we should redesign the process.
I've put some thought in the two ways of doing this: one package describing all
3-rd party repos vs one package per repo. My conclusion is that the one package
per repo probably is better; one reason is that it assures there is a complete
review process for each new 3rd-party repo added.
This is utterly confusing for me. Is this review ongoing even though the
reviewer has approved the package?
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.