Do we need rpmfusion-unstable repositories ?
kwizart at gmail.com
Sat Oct 11 12:59:39 CEST 2008
2008/10/11 Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora at leemhuis.info>:
> On 11.10.2008 11:15, Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) wrote:
> people with spare cycles! Like the package with the mock configs for test
> building RPM Fusion packages. I heard about ten request for it, but nobody
> started to work on it after I ask here a few weeks ago :-(
I will take care of this today. Will answer theses message for the
particulars question that I need to raise about this.
which name for each packages ? (as i expect
> (¹) I think even the whole spins stuff came up to early...
Why is this too early to discuss ? Could you elaborate?
I can agree that it could be too early to provide an "official iso".
But experimentation is appreciated.
>> For theses needs, the current design of the rpmfusion repositories
>> doesn't provide a solution yet. [...]
> Check the archives. We right from the start agreed that we might do
> additional repos where things like those you outline can be done *once* we
> have the main repos in place.
Again, this is no timeline. But to make a draw:
"Nvidia driver packages design" Requires "repository design".
"Update vlc version" design Requires "repository design"
There are workarounds but it would be better for the workarounds to be
provided from rpmfusion itself somehow, sooner or later.
Now I don't think we can reference the whole mailing list for a design
reference of suches features.
So i'm thinking of having a wiki page for Features_accepted
Features_discussed along with a page that would sum-up accurately
those features. (this could include "proprietary graphic drivers
parallel installable" description for example).
More information about the rpmfusion-developers