On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Mike Schwartz wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Charles Jones
> <charles.jones@ciscolearning.org> 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
(text/plain)