Do we need rpmfusion-unstable repositories ?

Julian Sikorski belegdol at
Sat Oct 11 11:18:48 CEST 2008

Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) pisze:
> Just with my previous message. I've suggested the need of having the
> nvidia beta driver provided from a separate repository.
> Actually there are others cases where it would be needed:
> -vlc is now at 0.9.x but still has very hard regression (VLM, vlvc,
> interaction with dependents software) from 0.8.6x, which last is
> officially unsupported (despite the unreleased 0.8.7 version is here to
> collect patches).
> - ieee1394 stack is still needed for some driver like
> (it may also need compat-libraw1394 unless the
> dual stack mode works).
> - Experimental packages (that do not fit Fedora guideline yet) could
> benefit to be widely distributed. (I'm think of freevo from my personal
> repository right now, which isn't ready for review yet).
> - Might be other needs...
> For theses needs, the current design of the rpmfusion repositories
> doesn't provide a solution yet.
> So this repository could be defined as such:
> - Reserved for developers, experienced users, adviced users.
> - What unstable means here isn't only beta software, but also
>   * software that was not qualified as stable on a given "Fedora ABI
> freeze", thus can lead to packages interaction problem. (vlc updated to
> 0.9.x / libraries such as ffmpeg with ABI/API bump for testing before to
> update in rpmfusion-stable).
>   * Technology choices not keepted (ieee1394/juju) but still having
> regression for some special use (ffado)
> - Repository shouldn't be activated by default in any case (no kmod for
> all kernels will be garanted, so better to use akmod ).
> - Users shouldn't use "wide update" but only targeted update.
>  (like yum update --enablerepo=rpmfusion-unstable xorg-x11-drv-nvidia)
> - Package replacement could be allowed from either Fedora/RPMFusion but
> should be prevented for "long term"/or common use, specially when an
> alternative solution is possible.
> - Repository requirement will be unsorted but may needs dependencies
> with fedora only, rpmfusion_free and rpmfusion_nonfree.
>  (there will not be an unstable repository for each possibility of
> interaction).
> - Do you see others case where it would be needed?
> - It it doable to implement cleanly on the buildsys?
> (I May try to help at the admin level if needed).
>  IMO it doesn't matter to have it ready to open rpmfusion (if even we
> are ready). So there is no timeline for this feature. But it could be at
> least discussed.
> Nicolas (kwizart)
sdlmame intermediate releases would also fit nice in this.


More information about the rpmfusion-developers mailing list