Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on December 06, 2004 09:21 PM
It's unfortunate that the article links to my FAQ, but the author apparently did not read it himself.
He describes a few repositories as the Lone Rangers, while in fact a few of the most prominent repositories have formed RPMforge (this is actually quite clear from the FAQ). The repositories that comprise RPMforge build their packages from the same source-base (SPEC files) and in an open matter. There's a lot of interaction with the community although the project currently does not scale to allow every individual to commit directly. In fact, fedora.us does not allow every individual to commit either and after 2 years does not have the infrastructure to scale. Which indicates the current problems Fedora Extras has...
The author also implies that fedora.us has a higher quality and better policies, but I wonder why he concludes this. This is in fact what fedora.us themselves are saying, but there's no metric to conclude this. In fact I would argue that a smaller dedicated group of packagers has a more consistent policy and a stricter way of working. The quality, coherency (and simplicity!) of SPEC files are directly proportional to the quality of the package.
Furthermore the RPMforge project goals are wider than only Fedora's. We provide packages for x86_64 (which fedora.us/livna.org currently does not), ppc, alpha, sparc. We support older distributions as well as Enterprise Linux, Yellow Dog and Aurora Linux. We're also directly involved in other communities like cAos, CentOS and other RPM based distributions. For that alone we have a much larger and divers userbase that is contributing.
The author also implies that the ommission of AtRPMS on my FAQ contradicts statements of AtRPMS. Come on ! What's your point ? I do work together with all other repositories that are interested in cross-compatibility and I do work together with Axel. Read my FAQ, I merely state which repositories I use myself, nothing else is implied with that. The fact that has been ommited from this article is that fedora.us/livna.org is not interested in cross-compatibility and in fact is actively working towards breaking compatibility to force people to choose. fedora.us is the only repository that refuses to allow cross-compatibility or even communication with other members of the community.
Something the article could have mentioned is the new Smart Package Manager that is the first tool that allows to use _all_ repositories in a very smart way. It avoids conflicts, allows users to control what package they want for what distribution and in fact gives the user control. It does not force the user to choose one over another, it allows users to pick what they need. You can find the Smart Package Manager RPM package for FC3 at:
<A HREF="http://dag.wieers.com/packages/smart/" title="wieers.com">http://dag.wieers.com/packages/smart/</a wieers.com>
and it comes pre-configured with 13 (!) repositories, even with fedora.us and livna.org, although fedora.us is not yet active. Smart has been designed from the bottom up by Gustavo Niemeyer, the same person that ported apt to RPM based distributions.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Things to clear up
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 06, 2004 09:21 PMHe describes a few repositories as the Lone Rangers, while in fact a few of the most prominent repositories have formed RPMforge (this is actually quite clear from the FAQ). The repositories that comprise RPMforge build their packages from the same source-base (SPEC files) and in an open matter. There's a lot of interaction with the community although the project currently does not scale to allow every individual to commit directly. In fact, fedora.us does not allow every individual to commit either and after 2 years does not have the infrastructure to scale. Which indicates the current problems Fedora Extras has...
The author also implies that fedora.us has a higher quality and better policies, but I wonder why he concludes this. This is in fact what fedora.us themselves are saying, but there's no metric to conclude this. In fact I would argue that a smaller dedicated group of packagers has a more consistent policy and a stricter way of working. The quality, coherency (and simplicity!) of SPEC files are directly proportional to the quality of the package.
Furthermore the RPMforge project goals are wider than only Fedora's. We provide packages for x86_64 (which fedora.us/livna.org currently does not), ppc, alpha, sparc. We support older distributions as well as Enterprise Linux, Yellow Dog and Aurora Linux. We're also directly involved in other communities like cAos, CentOS and other RPM based distributions. For that alone we have a much larger and divers userbase that is contributing.
The author also implies that the ommission of AtRPMS on my FAQ contradicts statements of AtRPMS. Come on ! What's your point ? I do work together with all other repositories that are interested in cross-compatibility and I do work together with Axel. Read my FAQ, I merely state which repositories I use myself, nothing else is implied with that. The fact that has been ommited from this article is that fedora.us/livna.org is not interested in cross-compatibility and in fact is actively working towards breaking compatibility to force people to choose. fedora.us is the only repository that refuses to allow cross-compatibility or even communication with other members of the community.
Something the article could have mentioned is the new Smart Package Manager that is the first tool that allows to use _all_ repositories in a very smart way. It avoids conflicts, allows users to control what package they want for what distribution and in fact gives the user control. It does not force the user to choose one over another, it allows users to pick what they need. You can find the Smart Package Manager RPM package for FC3 at:
<A HREF="http://dag.wieers.com/packages/smart/" title="wieers.com">http://dag.wieers.com/packages/smart/</a wieers.com>
and it comes pre-configured with 13 (!) repositories, even with fedora.us and livna.org, although fedora.us is not yet active. Smart has been designed from the bottom up by Gustavo Niemeyer, the same person that ported apt to RPM based distributions.
#