Re: Packaging 3-rd party repositories in rpmfusion
On 1/29/14, Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
At the start of RPM Fusion we had a sort of steering committee which
handled such decisions (IIRC Hans, Matthias and Thorsten). Each of them
represented one of the repositories merged in RPM Fusion (Dribble,
Freshrpms, and Livna).
It could be good to have such a committee back.
Yes, I wondered about this... we
really need a way to adapt.
> - We already have a list of endorsed 3-rd party repos [4].
>
That list is not endorsed in any way by RPM Fusion. It is just a list of
third party repositories made for user convenience, some of which are known
to work well (i.e. without conflicts) with RPM Fusion.
OK. Then my proposal
includes changing the official status of this
list (which certainly will require an update).
And of course, from a user perspective: why shouldn't it be easy to
use those repos which we know actually works with rpmfusion? From a
legal POV there shouldn't be much difference between recommending a
manual install and some tooling making it as long as user makes the
final decisions.
As RPM Fusion follows Fedora guidelines and at present Fedora forbids
to
ship third party repositories, we should do the same.
Actually, they don't just
forbid shipping repos - there is mechanisms
and policys for exemptions, and they are obviously intended to be used
(GL are *really* new). It's just that those policys and decision
making processes are not applicable for rpmfusion. That's why we need
to interpret this for our own needs in a meaningful way.
That said, I agree that unless we can change the rules of the game for
rpmfusion (probably requiring some kind of steering body) we probably
cannot ship a yum 3-rd party repository as things are right now.
Which seems to boil down to that rpmfusion lacks decision-making capabilities.
--alec