Do we need rpmfusion-unstable repositories ?

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 11.10.2008 12:59, KH KH wrote:
> 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.

thx

> 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?

Well at least from my point of view it's like this: I trying to sort out 
the remaining issues I see (¹) so we can officially launch RPM Fusion as 
soon as possible. But if new ideas come up (like unstable repos; a 
official spin) then I have to stop that work and get involved into those 
discussion if there is something that I dislike or something where 
people want to get my opinion.

(¹) everyone is encouraged to help; there is still a lot to fo afaics 
(I'll try to post a updated "remain steps to get rpm fusion started" 
mail later today/tomorrow")

> I can agree that it could be too early to provide an "official iso".
> But experimentation is appreciated.

I didn't stop anybody -- I just suggested that focusing on getting the 
remaining issues sorted out would IMHO be the better idea before working 
on the overnext steps.

>>> 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.

Can't follow. Can you try to rephrase?

> 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).

There have been such pages in the wiki (in RPM Fusion or Fedora), but 
they in my experience often tend to get outdated quickly and then are 
more misleading then helpful. But it works fine if someone has the 
energy to keep things up to date. But I warn you, that is a whole lot of 
work afaics.

CU
knurd