On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Mike Schwartz wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Charles Jones > wrote: >> Craig White wrote: >> On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 14:01 -0700, Charles Jones wrote: >> Craig White wrote: >> On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 13:57 -0700, Charles Jones wrote: >> I'm on a quest to get Hobbit Monitor ( >> http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/hobbitmon ) added to >> several linux 'Lots of back and forth with speculation without asking or research', I was thinking as I read the thread. I'll speak only from my personal knowledge and observations, and would note that this in no way constitutes any sort of statement by any one but yours truly. >> distros. Someone has already gotten it into Mandriva and >> Debian. I sort of volunteered to package it for Fedora >> (hopefully fc9), and CentOS. >> I believe that dag is starting to bundle for EPEL too... nope -- He was driven away with torches and pitchforks ;) -- the details are painful and recurrent with the Fedora folks holding to a policy of 'their way or the highway' as I see it. This battle has raged since before CentOS existed, and at the end of the day, the long time 'independent packagers' cannot help but get tired of being a punching bag for the political nitpicking and posturing of the Fedora folks (who seem to posture well, but 'play well with others', less well.) Then the packagers stop wasting their time on fedora, and turns back to productive pursuits (like actually packaging, running build systems, and the like). I carry 529 packagings, it seems. 'Most all work with all CentOS versions: http://www.owlriver.com/projects/ORC/ Inter-repository co-operation is useful, as it prevents complaints from a casual user; clearly externally marking which repositority provided which package in a simple rpm -q (packagename) Such efforts have been torpedoed by 'onlookers' with @redhat.com in their email addresses. Transcripts make this clear. >> What's the difference between EPEL and CentOSPlus ? At the end of the day -- EPEL is the captive of Red Hat; the independent packaging efforts are not. Red Hat committed to, and then backed away from its commitment to set up a freestanding foundation to make Fedora decisions -- their right, as they own it lock stock and barrel. cAos, and later the centos-sub project to cAos (later spun out as a free-standing project) were a reaction for a need for freedom for RH derived RPM based packaging distributions. https://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2007-May/msg00156.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2007-June/msg00031.html There as a meeting at FOSDEM last weekend -- perhaps things will get better. We'll see.. I've not heard a formal report yet. my $0.02 -- Russ Herrold --------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss