[suggest] Re: [packagers] Re: RPMforge invitation
avibrazil at gmail.com
Tue May 31 15:40:56 CEST 2005
I don't know if this is the cerne of the discussion, but I think RPMForge
should be stupid-users-oriented.
More than a simple repository for RPMs, it could be an index for general
apps dumb (and smart) users look for:
First page would be:
What do you want to install today ?
- Update your system !!
- DVD/MPEG player (KDE, Gnome)
- Music management software (KDE, Gnome)
- Desktop eye-candy
- PDA conectivity and integration
- OpenOffice: templates, clipart
- Personal Finanse
- HA cluster management
- Network monitoring tools
- Web reporting tools
- Complete enterprise mail solution
- JBoss Application Server
- Eclipse Rich Client Platform and IDE
- GIF manipulation library
- Chart generation stuff
- MPEG manipulation stuff
- HW drivers
- Filesystem drivers
- Java Virtual Machine and browser plugin
Of course this should be all linked to TLDP howtos when possible.
I think RPMForge should count number of user problems it can solve, and not
the number of RPMs it contain.
I have more ideas about this draft, and I'm ready to share and contribute if
people are interested.
Of course behind it advanced users can still choose between stable and
testing. But this is for advanced geeks that don't need 2 clicks actions or
I like the way www.winfiles.com <http://www.winfiles.com> and
windowsupdate.microsoft.com <http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com> work.
On 5/31/05, Morten Kjeldgaard <mok at bioxray.dk> wrote:
> > What do you guys think?
> The standard way to do it in several repos -- a tradition that comes
> from Debian -- is to have different components within the repository,
> usually stable, testing and unstable.
> That would be the way to go IMHO, because users can then decide what
> risk they want to take already when setting up their
> yum.repo/sources.list files
> New versions of packages should go into "testing" by default, only to
> move into "stable" after a specified length of time w/o bug reports.
> With many bug-reports, the package is moved into "unstable".
> People subscribing to "testing" would go "bleeding edge" wrt. versions.
> But for a server, you may want to subscribe to "stable" and be
> relatively certain that things will not break.
> PS: Of course the Debian definition of the above categories are:
> stable: we haven't bothered to update this in years
> testing: this is what we all use, but hey, all programs are buggy!
> unstable: known to have crashed... errr, when was that??
> packagers mailing list
> packagers at lists.rpmforge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the users