[users] [OT] Analogies to "governance, " not so much "manufacturer" -- WAS: EPEL
Bryan J Smith
b.j.smith at ieee.org
Mon Jun 27 15:07:54 CEST 2011
You've always thought outside-the-box and too far ahead of a lot of people (and
I say this as the sincerest form of complement).
I've watched the Fedora Project's evolution over many years and while you might
have not been a part of the team or list directly, there's no denying your work
and approaches has indirectly and even directly impacted the project over the
years. I'm not afraid to say that in the least bit if anyone ever asks me, or
makes a statement about DAG, RPMforge, etc...
I mentioned Guidelines, Maintainer and Governance as a kind of "tri-fecta."
Back to my [counter-] analogy, it's more than just a choice (company) detail.
Different locales are trying to solve the same problems, and often use the same
guidelines (industry) and sources (companies) as other locales, but the
maintenance and governance differences end up making all the difference. In
other words, I've never seen it as a technical issue.
Just my observations, as a purposeful outsider to both RPMforge and Fedora/EPEL,
even if annoying to many. ;)
----- Original Message ----
From: Dag Wieers <dag at wieers.com>
Sent: Mon, June 27, 2011 8:27:35 AM
So there were a few problems that made us decide not to join the Fedora
project at that time:
- They were not interested in RHEL packages
- They were not interested in using macros to simplify supporting
- They were not interested in using the %dist macro
If you look at today:
- Fedora is doing RHEL packages
- Fedora is using macros to simplify maintaining packages
- Fedora has started using %dist macro in an incompatible way, so we
introduced the %dtag macro for our specific use-case
That said, for a large part I agree with the Fedora packaging guidelines
and Tom Callaway has been doing a great job at that. But the Fedora
packaging guidelines are *not* the reason why there are incompatibilities.
More information about the users