Re: An introduction of the new cheerleader...
From: Chris Rouch (crouch_at_pobox.com)
Date: 01/29/04
- Previous message: QMu=F1oz_Rubio=2C_Jose_Mar=EDa=22?=: "Oracle9.1 and Fedora"
- In reply to: Michael Schwendt: "Re: An introduction of the new cheerleader..."
- Next in thread: Michael Schwendt: "Re: An introduction of the new cheerleader..."
- Reply: Michael Schwendt: "Re: An introduction of the new cheerleader..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: fedora-list@redhat.com Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:03:56 +0100
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:21:27 +0100
Michael Schwendt <ms-nospam-0306@arcor.de> wrote:
> There is one particular thing I don't understand. Once an arbitrary
> repository contains a new package, people don't hesitate to download
> and install it. When it's broken or not as usable as expected, they
> either downgrade or try the next repository (this experience is based
> on comments seen in message boards), repeating this procedure
> regularly. But when a package of the same software is in a public
> queue of packages to be reviewed before they get published, people
> avoid such packages like the plague and don't give the packages a try
> and don't leave feedback.
Maybe that's because of the perception that anything in a QA queue is
'rawhide' quality, whereas anything released by a repository has
undergone some (possibly rudimentary, possibly thorough) testing and is
ready for the real world. It's been my experience since redhat 7 that
rawhide mostly works but sometimes doesn't, and e.g. freshrpms almost
always works.
Having had such a good experience over time with freshrpms I'm inclined
to keep using it, and other repositories which attempt (not always
successfully) to stay compatible with it. From what I've read fedora.us
and 3rd party repos are making no attempt to be compatible with each
other. This is a shame.
> I think
> the community can do better than that. But the Fedora community has a
> long road to take to realize that--like with the Debian GNU/Linux
> project--it's better to spend a combined effort on a primary source of
> reliable and maintained packages than to either want everything
> maintained by Red Hat in "Fedora Core" or to keep an excessive list of
> repositories maintained by individuals and live with interoperability
> problems.
It would be nice, but I'm not sure it's practical. For example Planet
ccrma builds low latency kernels, atrpms build kernels with the v4l
patches applied. I can't really see one repository maintaining these or
other variants on the redhat kernels.
What I'd like is for the independent repos to keep doing their
packaging as now, but when a package is released by them it is submitted
to Fedora QA to become a Fedora Extras package. Then people who have
confidence in 3rd party repos could grab new packages early, and people
who require a formally QA'd package could wait for the official Fedora
release. But this will require a degree of co-operation that isn't in
evidence at the moment.
Please don't take this as a flame. I appreciate all the efforts that are
being made - I just think things could be better.
Regards,
Chris
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Rouch
crouch@pobox.com
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
- Previous message: QMu=F1oz_Rubio=2C_Jose_Mar=EDa=22?=: "Oracle9.1 and Fedora"
- In reply to: Michael Schwendt: "Re: An introduction of the new cheerleader..."
- Next in thread: Michael Schwendt: "Re: An introduction of the new cheerleader..."
- Reply: Michael Schwendt: "Re: An introduction of the new cheerleader..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
