[lsb-discuss] LSB advocacy -- was: Looking for input from EPEL

R P Herrold herrold at owlriver.com
Wed Sep 1 07:38:36 PDT 2010


I sent this a couple moments ago, one again calling and 
reaching out to Red hat and its captive and 
independent packaging communities

-- Russ herrold

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:33:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: R P Herrold <herrold at owlriver.com>
Reply-To: The CentOS developers mailing list. <centos-devel at centos.org>
Subject: centos-d] Looking for input from EPEL

On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:

> The mere fact that Stephen asked here is the proof that EPEL 
> DOES care about other repos. I also would like to point to 
> Kevin's message ( 
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2010-August/msg00158.html 
> ) which also proves that EPEL does try to avoid creating 
> interoperability problems [*]

> Please, let's focus on technical issues and not restart an useless flame
> war.

The elided [*] comment tosses some fuel toward the ignition
source, no?  One swallow does not a Spring, make

It is a fair question -- dist tags / repotags were kept out by
the efforts of some with @redhat emails.  Has that changed?

[I dont CARE they make the external file name fuglier, frankly
-- if a packging entity will not sign their work with a brand
that can be readily discerned by external inspection, I'm not
much interested in them anyway]


There is a long tradition of differing level of
interoperability. Sadly, although one might wish that any
archive can interoperate with any archive, and that one never
'steps' on another archive, that can can never come to pass,
for reasons noted in my post a couple years back to the EPEL
ML

The obvious means of maximizing portibility and NOT stepping
on another archive, is simply building packages that depend
ONLY on LSB provided interfaces, and uses a private namespace,
assigned by LANANA   that approach exists, has existed, and
still work today.  It is merely cumbersome -- so automate it!!


The other parts of Smooge's question have as much to do with
Red Hat's plans for interaction with its community adjunct
archive, its Linux product in chief and the non-distribution
of binary restrictions EPEL operates under, and the commercial
partners adjunct archive.  While I don't mind being asked, I
certainly don't feel it is my, nor indeed CentOS', mandate to
tell Red Hat how to run their business

I'll just point at LSB, and say:
  	It is there for a reason

-- Russ herrold


More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list