Re: Fostering Cooperation (was Yum and EXTRAS)
From: Robin Laing (Robin.Laing_at_drdc-rddc.gc.ca)
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 10:45:30 -0600 To: For users of Fedora Core releases <email@example.com>
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 09:47, Robin Laing wrote:
>>>The real problem is that the 3rd party repositories (freshrpms, DAG,
>>>etc.) existed long before the fedora project, providing updates for
>>>RH versions that otherwise would have required a subscription to
>>>obtain automatically along with additional packages. Then the
>>>fedora repository used different conventions. If the 3rd party
>>>sites change conventions, their existing users will at best have to
>>>download everything touched again and at worst, have broken systems.
>>I do agree with you to a point.
>>But with a new release (FC4), why not support the newer version as the
> There are systems around that have been 'yum upgrade'ed from a RH 7.x
> base. It's not supported or recommended, but people have their reasons
> for doing it.
And they have the problems to deal with. If someone is upgrading,
then they will have to change with the distribution to do the upgrade.
I was talking to an admin this week that did the upgrade path and
decided to do a full rebuild. Guess what, it was different than the
upgrade. Different applications and more applications than via the
>>Any third party site could (should) work with the
>>distribution method of the release and work as seamlessly as possible.
>> They should also try to work together as some are so they don't
>>duplicate packages and/or their packages are mutually compatible.
> That implies a single point of control, which can't really happen
> and would not be a good thing if it did.
I didn't state a single point of control. I stated that they should
work together. We would all love that.
>>It is a pain to install from one repository only to find that you
>>cannot update from a different repository or even from the fedora core
>>site. This is one of those issues about multiple repositories that
>>has burned me. No site should require the installation of a package
>>that prevents the upgrading from another site.
> Agreed, but what if a package you want needs a core library rebuilt
> with different compile options that make it incompatible with
> other packages.
This is one area that I have not dealt with to this level. Of course
that is the users choice and should be well documented on the repo
site. I have fought this in the past where I could not install a
security update due to repo differences and left with only the option
to use force or nodeps to get around the problem. This is one area
where Gentoo works better. The site should still work with the Fedora
Thinking about this more makes the idea of extras a nice option to
support more customization.
>>In general, I prefer the move to Extras as it makes it easier for a
>>basic install. Then use yum or preferred method to install the
> As long as nothing needs conflicting options and the contents you
> want have no legal questions in any location...
Now I feel that the Extras will be fully compliant with the base and
that to me isn't an issue. I did look and see that some applications
that were part of FC1 are not in FC4 and this affects me. I will have
to either find another repository for these applications as RPM or
compile them myself.
There will always be those issues of who has control and sets the
different options required. If the Fedora Project sticks to the
standard set by Fedora and ensure that they work together then there
should be no problem. It isn't that the Extras are a different project.
I may be wrong but I feel that the separation to extras will work
better than not.
-- Robin Laing -- fedora-list mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list