Unless I've missed something (which is possible) there hasn't been any "public progress announcements" regarding rpmfusion in the past several weeks.
Is there anything new to report? My ulterior motive is that I would love to have the convenience of a one-stop rpm shop for Centos/RHEL and Fedora, and it's my understanding that's what rpmfusion is intended to be...
On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 00:52 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
Unless I've missed something (which is possible) there hasn't been any "public progress announcements" regarding rpmfusion in the past several weeks.
Is there anything new to report? My ulterior motive is that I would love to have the convenience of a one-stop rpm shop for Centos/RHEL and Fedora, and it's my understanding that's what rpmfusion is intended to be...
RPMFusion has their own mailing lists; consider asking there.
(Spoiler: Too much work, not enough people)
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 03:40:08 -0400 Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams ivazqueznet@gmail.com wrote:
RPMFusion has their own mailing lists; consider asking there.
I did exactly that, before posting my question here. Didn't see anything that looked like a recent overall progress update. The last post to the users list was almost a month back and the developers list is mostly concerned with individual packages and and not an overview. Dribble is apparently fully present and accounted for, but what of the other repositories?
Frank Cox wrote:
Unless I've missed something (which is possible) there hasn't been any "public progress announcements" regarding rpmfusion in the past several weeks.
Is there anything new to report? My ulterior motive is that I would love to have the convenience of a one-stop rpm shop for Centos/RHEL and Fedora, and it's my understanding that's what rpmfusion is intended to be...
rpmfusion never intended to support CentOS or any EL distro, they are very much Fedora centric, so you should go talk to them about it
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:38:49 +0100 Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
rpmfusion never intended to support CentOS or any EL distro, they are very much Fedora centric, so you should go talk to them about it
The very first line on the web page at http://rpmfusion.org says "RPM Fusion is a merger of the following package repositories for Fedora and Red Hat Enterprise Linux ".
Frank Cox wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:38:49 +0100 Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
rpmfusion never intended to support CentOS or any EL distro, they are very much Fedora centric, so you should go talk to them about it
The very first line on the web page at http://rpmfusion.org says "RPM Fusion is a merger of the following package repositories for Fedora and Red Hat Enterprise Linux ".
And do any of those repo's listed there produce rpms for EL ? I know quite a few of the people who are involved in rpmfusion, some even personally, and I wasent joking. They really were not considering EL at all till they get the fedora stuff sorted and the decision at the time was to reconsider a few years down the road.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:24:40 +0100 Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
And do any of those repo's listed there produce rpms for EL ?
Even if they don't do it today, perhaps they are planning to start with the launch of rpmfusion. Or not. I'm just going on what the rpmfusion web page says, and it says "Red Hat Enterprise Linux".
I know quite a few of the people who are involved in rpmfusion, some even personally, and I wasent joking. They really were not considering EL at all till they get the fedora stuff sorted and the decision at the time was to reconsider a few years down the road.
That's not what their web page currently says. However, in view of the fact that you know quite a few of the people who are involved in rpmfusion (and I don't), then you're a good guy to ask:
Unless I've missed something (which is possible) there hasn't been any "public progress announcements" regarding rpmfusion in the past several weeks.
Is there anything new to report?
(This question still hasn't been answered.)
Frank Cox wrote:
Is there anything new to report?
(This question still hasn't been answered.)
if you go ask on the Fedora lists and their own lists at rpmfusion, I am sure they will tell you :D Ignacio already did hint at what the situation was though.
Frank Cox wrote:
Unless I've missed something (which is possible) there hasn't been any "public progress announcements" regarding rpmfusion in the past several weeks.
Is there anything new to report? My ulterior motive is that I would love to have the convenience of a one-stop rpm shop for Centos/RHEL and Fedora, and it's my understanding that's what rpmfusion is intended to be...
Not to start a repo flame war, but for CentOS/RHEL, the repo that aims to be a one-stop rpm shop is EPEL. Of course it needs more contributors, but it has already ported a significant amount of FC6's old 'extras' repo over (FC6 <-> EL5).
I suspect that EL6 will be equivalent to F8 as F9 has just way too many new technologies that will take 2 years or more to settle down to stable technologies.
-Ross
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
Not to start a repo flame war, but for CentOS/RHEL, the repo that aims to be a one-stop rpm shop is EPEL. Of course it needs more contributors, but it has already ported a significant amount of FC6's old 'extras' repo over (FC6 <-> EL5).
Ross, you are wrong on that front - EPEL cant by definition be the one stop shop as a repo. Thats the sort of thing that some of us are trying to address with rpmforge, atrpms along with CentOS and SciLinux developers contributing into the rpmrepo.org project. Once its off the ground and functioning perhaps EPEL will like to join in, but thats their decision.
Karanbir Singh wrote:
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
Not to start a repo flame war, but for CentOS/RHEL, the repo that aims to be a one-stop rpm shop is EPEL. Of course it needs more contributors, but it has already ported a significant amount of FC6's old 'extras' repo over (FC6 <-> EL5).
Ross, you are wrong on that front - EPEL cant by definition be the one stop shop as a repo. Thats the sort of thing that some of us are trying to address with rpmforge, atrpms along with CentOS and SciLinux developers contributing into the rpmrepo.org project. Once its off the ground and functioning perhaps EPEL will like to join in, but thats their decision.
If they manage to port all the Fedora extras over for EL then I would say that is pretty darn close to one-stop shop for RPMs. Of course no repo can have it all. There are always the questionable items like closed source drivers and codecs which should be isolated.
Now I am not even going to touch the political/moral issue of whether they SHOULD be a one-stop shop, I merely stated what they aim to be.
CentOS could develop it's own EPEL-like repo for it's 'extras' if enough developers are willing to put in the time to develop and maintain such a beast. There could be one for each release and use the corresponding Fedora 'extras' repo as the base to build off of.
Personally if my opinion matters for anything, which it most probably doesn't, I have always felt that enterprise Linux repos would be best served if they were maintained expressly for the enterprise Linux they serve. That way compatibility and quality assurance would be at the same level as the Linux they run on and they can react faster to changes within the enterprise Linux environment.
The bottom line in this whole discussion though is we all hate repo overlap and I think if given the chance to pick one repo that had almost all we were looking for we would pick that one. I believe it is in that regard that Debian has it's strength.
-Ross
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
If they manage to port all the Fedora extras over for EL then I would say that is pretty darn close to one-stop shop for RPMs. Of course no repo can have it all. There are always the questionable items like closed source drivers and codecs which should be isolated.
Ross, you are obviously interested in the flames more than anything else, and as Rex already pointed out in a hintting kind of way, lots of us are no longer interested in that.
You need to go back and workout what a real resourceful repo should / could / would have. If EPEL gives you all that, your' done. For a vast majority of the rest of us, it doesnt and the way their mandate works, it wont.
Karanbir Singh wrote:
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
If they manage to port all the Fedora extras over for EL then I would say that is pretty darn close to one-stop shop for RPMs. Of course no repo can have it all. There are always the questionable items like closed source drivers and codecs which should be isolated.
Ross, you are obviously interested in the flames more than anything else, and as Rex already pointed out in a hintting kind of way, lots of us are no longer interested in that.
Then why are you still talking?
You need to go back and workout what a real resourceful repo should / could / would have. If EPEL gives you all that, your' done. For a vast majority of the rest of us, it doesnt and the way their mandate works, it wont.
This is a CentOS users list. It is for users of CentOS to FREELY voice their opinions on and about CentOS. If you don't like my opinion, fine, but you have no right to tell me I am wrong.
-Ross
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
You need to go back and workout what a real resourceful repo should / could / would have. If EPEL gives you all that, your' done. For a vast majority of the rest of us, it doesnt and the way their mandate works, it wont.
This is a CentOS users list. It is for users of CentOS to FREELY voice their opinions on and about CentOS. If you don't like my opinion, fine, but you have no right to tell me I am wrong.
But you are wrong, you claimed with authority that EPEL are trying to be the everything-repo, which they are not and cant be. You are free to voice an opinion, but if you are wrong, you are wrong.
Karanbir Singh wrote:
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
You need to go back and workout what a real resourceful repo should / could / would have. If EPEL gives you all that, your' done. For a vast majority of the rest of us, it doesnt and the way their mandate works, it wont.
This is a CentOS users list. It is for users of CentOS to FREELY voice their opinions on and about CentOS. If you don't like my opinion, fine, but you have no right to tell me I am wrong.
But you are wrong, you claimed with authority that EPEL are trying to be the everything-repo, which they are not and cant be. You are free to voice an opinion, but if you are wrong, you are wrong.
If EPEL does not play with other repos and does not intend to, then one can extrapolate from that they are intending or aiming to be a one-stop repo.
Whether they are successful in that endeavor is left to the user to decide.
-Ross
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Ross S. W. Walker RWalker@medallion.com wrote:
If they manage to port all the Fedora extras over for EL then I would say that is pretty darn close to one-stop shop for RPMs.
Assuming that all software ever needed by anybody exists in Fedora....
Bent Terp wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Ross S. W. Walker RWalker@medallion.com wrote:
If they manage to port all the Fedora extras over for EL then I would say that is pretty darn close to one-stop shop for RPMs.
Assuming that all software ever needed by anybody exists in Fedora....
Of course it won't be, it never will, but what isn't can be obtained either through, 1) building your own RPM, 2) downloading another pre-built RPM, or 3) building from source in /usr/local.
The idea is to have a repo where the occurrence of such is at a minimal.
-Ross
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Rex Dieter wrote:
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
Not to start a repo flame war,
nice try.
Nice catch =:D
I had to preface it with that, so I wouldn't seem like a total troll!
Now if you excuse me, since my work is done here, I have a bridge to crawl under...
-Ross
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
-
Bent Terp -
Frank Cox -
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams -
Karanbir Singh -
Ralph Angenendt -
Rex Dieter -
Ross S. W. Walker