Where we are and where do we what to go?

[Dan Horák]

Thorsten Leemhuis píše v Po 09. 02. 2009 v 19:58 +0100:
> On 09.02.2009 14:28, Dan Horák wrote:
> > Thorsten Leemhuis píše v Ne 08. 02. 2009 v 10:06 +0100:
> >> On 04.02.2009 14:24, Rex Dieter wrote:
> >>> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >>>> On 04.02.2009 14:00, Rex Dieter wrote:
> >>>>> Andrea Musuruane wrote:
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>> In the meantime, I'll go adjust the wiki to move kde-redhat to the 
> >>>>> "compatible" section. :)
> >>>> If RPM Fusion would have one big and/or multiple dedicated experimental 
> >>>> repos, would kde-redhat then be interested into "merging" into RPM 
> >>>> Fusion? 
> >>> yes!
> >> I'd like that to happen. What others think of the idea to start a 
> >> experimental area and do the first steps with kde-redhat like repos?
> > 
> > I agree and would like join with some of my stuff.
> 
> Hmmm. kde-redhat is something special, so a dedicated repo for it makes 
> a lot of sense afaics.
> 
> But do you need to have your own dedicated experimental repo. Might a 
> general experimental repo be a better solution? Not sure myself, just 
> want to hear options...

Oh, I was thinking that we are going to offer a merger for the personal
or highly specialized repos into one experimental repo (if possible)
that will use RPM Fusion's infrastructure.

> 
> > But the question is what should be the relation between new repo and
> > RPMFusion
> 
> BTW: It's "RPM Fusion" (with space) ;-)

I wasn't sure and looks like I forgot to make at least the spell checker
happy :-)

> > and Fedora
> > 1. can contain packages that are already in RPMFusion/Fedora?
> > and when 1 = yes then
> 
> Yes. Otherwise merging kde-redhat afaics wouldn't make much sense
> 
> > 2. can include packages newer then rawhide?
> 
> I'd say so. (As long term gnome user) I'm not familiar at all with 
> kde-redhat, but I think that's what they also do now and then (like 
> preparing kde 4.2 before it hit rawhide or 4.1 before it hit F9?)
> 
> > 3. can contain backports of rawhide packages to stable releases?
> 
> I'd say so.
> 
> In general: I wouldn't want to many rules for those repos. But we need 
> to be very careful. Having to many of those repos could be dangerous 
> (for us), confusing (for the users) and time consuming (for infra and 
> the people that take care of the infra). And we of course need to make 
> sure that the main repo remains the repo that normally offers everything 
> ordinary users want.

When there should be multiple repos, then I would prefer to divide them
by relation to Fedora/RPM Fusion (eg. experimental, backports) rather
then by area (kde, mono, math, ...)


		Dan