5:44 p.m.
Hi,
Is there any work between RPMFusion and RPMRepo
(http://www.rpmrepo.org/) in making sure that the packages they release
work well together? Or, at the very least, packages from one don't
conflict with the other (AND Fedora)? Perhaps while both attempts are at
their infancy, steps could be made so that the possibility of collusion
down the line won't be made impossible.
--
Richi Plana
6:18 p.m.
2007/11/29, Richi Plana <myfedora(a)richip.dhs.org>:
Is there any work between RPMFusion and RPMRepo
(http://www.rpmrepo.org/) in making sure that the packages they release
work well together? Or, at the very least, packages from one don't
conflict with the other (AND Fedora)? Perhaps while both attempts are at
their infancy, steps could be made so that the possibility of collusion
down the line won't be made impossible.
Some of the packager of RPM Repo were asked to join RPM Fusion but
they had different plans.
Since this question comes to this list frequently, I wonder if we
should say something somewhere in the wiki.
Bye,
Andrea.
6:40 p.m.
On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 19:18 +0100, Andrea Musuruane wrote:
2007/11/29, Richi Plana <myfedora(a)richip.dhs.org>:
> Is there any work between RPMFusion and RPMRepo
> (http://www.rpmrepo.org/) in making sure that the packages they release
> work well together? Or, at the very least, packages from one don't
> conflict with the other (AND Fedora)? Perhaps while both attempts are at
> their infancy, steps could be made so that the possibility of collusion
> down the line won't be made impossible.
Some of the packager of RPM Repo were asked to join RPM Fusion but
they had different plans.
Sometimes it's impossible (or at least improbable) for projects to join.
The reasons vary including personal pride, differences in opinion or
philosophy, technical or even logistical reasons. That said ...
Since this question comes to this list frequently, I wonder if we
should say something somewhere in the wiki.
It would be great for the end-user if they/we could be made aware of
where two major players like RPMRepo and RPMFusion differ as well as
where they follow the similar rules. End-users must decide how to treat
both parties, and in most cases will opt to choose both. It would help
the end-user decide which package to use from which repo given that
he/she is aware of the differences in the options.
In that sense, yes, a wiki documenting these "different plans" would be
a good idea. Who knows? Perhaps the two might not be so different after
all.
--
Richi Plana
8:20 a.m.
I understood that z00dax of centos.karan.org was in RPM repo.
Funny thing is i'm hosting centos.karan.org just on the same server as
rpm.livna.org and upcoming rpmfusion repo :)
He's a good m8, if you want i can ask him to join/talk with us ?
Le jeudi 29 novembre 2007 à 11:40 -0700, Richi Plana a écrit :
On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 19:18 +0100, Andrea Musuruane wrote:
> 2007/11/29, Richi Plana <myfedora(a)richip.dhs.org>:
> > Is there any work between RPMFusion and RPMRepo
> > (http://www.rpmrepo.org/) in making sure that the packages they release
> > work well together? Or, at the very least, packages from one don't
> > conflict with the other (AND Fedora)? Perhaps while both attempts are at
> > their infancy, steps could be made so that the possibility of collusion
> > down the line won't be made impossible.
>
> Some of the packager of RPM Repo were asked to join RPM Fusion but
> they had different plans.
Sometimes it's impossible (or at least improbable) for projects to join.
The reasons vary including personal pride, differences in opinion or
philosophy, technical or even logistical reasons. That said ...
> Since this question comes to this list frequently, I wonder if we
> should say something somewhere in the wiki.
It would be great for the end-user if they/we could be made aware of
where two major players like RPMRepo and RPMFusion differ as well as
where they follow the similar rules. End-users must decide how to treat
both parties, and in most cases will opt to choose both. It would help
the end-user decide which package to use from which repo given that
he/she is aware of the differences in the options.
In that sense, yes, a wiki documenting these "different plans" would be
a good idea. Who knows? Perhaps the two might not be so different after
all.
--
Richi Plana
3:21 p.m.
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 09:20 +0100, Pix wrote:
I understood that z00dax of centos.karan.org was in RPM repo.
Funny thing is i'm hosting centos.karan.org just on the same server as
rpm.livna.org and upcoming rpmfusion repo :)
He's a good m8, if you want i can ask him to join/talk with us ?
That'd be great! It'd be nice to sort out the issues so that as
developments and changes occur down-the-line, we might find these
problems mitigated.
--
Richi Plana
3:10 p.m.
On 30.11.2007 16:21, Richi Plana wrote:
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 09:20 +0100, Pix wrote:
> I understood that z00dax of centos.karan.org was in RPM repo.
> Funny thing is i'm hosting centos.karan.org just on the same server as
> rpm.livna.org and upcoming rpmfusion repo :)
> He's a good m8, if you want i can ask him to join/talk with us ?
That'd be great!
In case anybody wonders: Pix tried that:
[...]
14:23:26 <@ z00dax> | rpmfusion is a waste of time :D
[...]
14:23:39 <@ z00dax> | its just an extention of the stupid fedora mindset
[...]
14:23:52 <@ z00dax> | so, as far as i am concerned, its a waste of time
[...]
This is a free world and forking or having multiple concurrent projects
doing similar things is IMHO a important thing in the open source world
and nothing bad.
So I'd say let's respect z00dax's and other peoples opinions (¹) and doings
and continue with RPM Fusion as planed (²). Maybe sooner or later
a cooperation evolves and a bit later there is another merger.
CU
knurd
(¹) -- reminder: please never ever call the guys from rpmrepo (or other repos)
stupid or something similar. The people there are important part of the
community and do a lot of good work. It's afaics normal in life that different
groups of people have different options and goals; RPM Fusion and rpmrepo
are just examples for that IMHO.
(²) -- ixs and I are working on setting up FAS atm, which should give us
the auth stuff for the look aside cache, so then we should be able to
use CVS and finally start
4:09 p.m.
On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 16:10 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 30.11.2007 16:21, Richi Plana wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 09:20 +0100, Pix wrote:
>> I understood that z00dax of centos.karan.org was in RPM repo.
>> Funny thing is i'm hosting centos.karan.org just on the same server as
>> rpm.livna.org and upcoming rpmfusion repo :)
>> He's a good m8, if you want i can ask him to join/talk with us ?
> That'd be great!
In case anybody wonders: Pix tried that:
[...]
14:23:26 <@ z00dax> | rpmfusion is a waste of time :D
[...]
14:23:39 <@ z00dax> | its just an extention of the stupid fedora mindset
[...]
14:23:52 <@ z00dax> | so, as far as i am concerned, its a waste of time
[...]
This is a free world and forking or having multiple concurrent projects
doing similar things is IMHO a important thing in the open source world
and nothing bad.
So I'd say let's respect z00dax's and other peoples opinions (¹) and doings
and continue with RPM Fusion as planed (²). Maybe sooner or later
a cooperation evolves and a bit later there is another merger.
I agree, but could someone list down what they think is "stupid" of the
"Fedora mindset"? I've made my choice to stick it out with Fedora, but
after dwelling a while in the fedora-devel mailing list, I have to admit
that I DO have my share of misgivings, some of which, hopefully, will be
mitigated by third-party repos like RPM Fusion. Anyway, the point is, no
one improves who's not willing to admit inadequacies or failings. If
there's any point to z00dax's "stupid" comment, I'd like to hear
it.
(¹) -- reminder: please never ever call the guys from rpmrepo (or
other repos)
stupid or something similar. The people there are important part of the
community and do a lot of good work. It's afaics normal in life that different
groups of people have different options and goals; RPM Fusion and rpmrepo
are just examples for that IMHO.
Amen! It's rather immature and counterproductive to do so, anyway.
--
Richi Plana
4:51 p.m.
On 06.12.2007 17:09, Richi Plana wrote:
On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 16:10 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 30.11.2007 16:21, Richi Plana wrote:
>> On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 09:20 +0100, Pix wrote:
>>> I understood that z00dax of centos.karan.org was in RPM repo.
>>> Funny thing is i'm hosting centos.karan.org just on the same server as
>>> rpm.livna.org and upcoming rpmfusion repo :)
>>> He's a good m8, if you want i can ask him to join/talk with us ?
>> That'd be great!
> In case anybody wonders: Pix tried that:
> [...]
> 14:23:26 <@ z00dax> | rpmfusion is a waste of time :D
> [...]
> 14:23:39 <@ z00dax> | its just an extention of the stupid fedora mindset
> [...]
> 14:23:52 <@ z00dax> | so, as far as i am concerned, its a waste of time
> [...]
> This is a free world and forking or having multiple concurrent projects
> doing similar things is IMHO a important thing in the open source world
> and nothing bad.
> So I'd say let's respect z00dax's and other peoples opinions (¹) and
doings
> and continue with RPM Fusion as planed (²). Maybe sooner or later
> a cooperation evolves and a bit later there is another merger.
I agree, but could someone list down what they think is "stupid" of the
"Fedora mindset"?
Not sure if asking that here will lead to anything.
I've made my choice to stick it out with Fedora, but
after dwelling a while in the fedora-devel mailing list, I have to admit
that I DO have my share of misgivings, some of which, hopefully, will be
mitigated by third-party repos like RPM Fusion. Anyway, the point is, no
one improves who's not willing to admit inadequacies or failings. If
there's any point to z00dax's "stupid" comment, I'd like to hear
it.
FYI, part of the problem is likely EPEL, the Fedora project where Fedora
rebuild Fedora packages for RHEL. We offer them also for users of
derivates like CentOS -- some people afaics dislike that because we
entered their territory without cooperating with (for example) CentOS
extras. In fact that is what we tried, but it failed due to errors on
both sides. Then came the repotag debate in EPEL, which made things even
worse (that's a long story short).
CU
knurd
Cu
knurd
6:44 p.m.
On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 17:51 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 06.12.2007 17:09, Richi Plana wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 16:10 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 30.11.2007 16:21, Richi Plana wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 09:20 +0100, Pix wrote:
>>>> I understood that z00dax of centos.karan.org was in RPM repo.
>>>> Funny thing is i'm hosting centos.karan.org just on the same server
as
>>>> rpm.livna.org and upcoming rpmfusion repo :)
>>>> He's a good m8, if you want i can ask him to join/talk with us ?
>>> That'd be great!
>> In case anybody wonders: Pix tried that:
>> [...]
>> 14:23:26 <@ z00dax> | rpmfusion is a waste of time :D
>> [...]
>> 14:23:39 <@ z00dax> | its just an extention of the stupid fedora
mindset
>> [...]
>> 14:23:52 <@ z00dax> | so, as far as i am concerned, its a waste of
time
>> [...]
>> This is a free world and forking or having multiple concurrent projects
>> doing similar things is IMHO a important thing in the open source world
>> and nothing bad.
>> So I'd say let's respect z00dax's and other peoples opinions (¹) and
doings
>> and continue with RPM Fusion as planed (²). Maybe sooner or later
>> a cooperation evolves and a bit later there is another merger.
> I agree, but could someone list down what they think is "stupid" of the
> "Fedora mindset"?
Not sure if asking that here will lead to anything.
> I've made my choice to stick it out with Fedora, but
> after dwelling a while in the fedora-devel mailing list, I have to admit
> that I DO have my share of misgivings, some of which, hopefully, will be
> mitigated by third-party repos like RPM Fusion. Anyway, the point is, no
> one improves who's not willing to admit inadequacies or failings. If
> there's any point to z00dax's "stupid" comment, I'd like to
hear it.
FYI, part of the problem is likely EPEL, the Fedora project where Fedora
rebuild Fedora packages for RHEL. We offer them also for users of
derivates like CentOS -- some people afaics dislike that because we
entered their territory without cooperating with (for example) CentOS
extras. In fact that is what we tried, but it failed due to errors on
both sides. Then came the repotag debate in EPEL, which made things even
worse (that's a long story short).
CU
knurd
Cu
knurd
--
Lubomir Kundrak (Red Hat Security Response Team)
5983
days inactive
5990
days old
rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
8 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Andrea Musuruane -
Lubomir Kundrak -
Pix -
Richi Plana -
Thorsten Leemhuis