[CentOS-devel] Re: Third repos CentOS 5 compatibility

Sat May 5 23:57:56 UTC 2007
Ralph Angenendt <ra+centos at br-online.de>

Axel Thimm wrote:
> 00:55 <    mmcgrath> | I'm just tired of playing politics with people who are trying to define what rules we play by even though they don't honor our rules.

EPEL is the newcomer in here. Defining new rules with other repositories
already in place whilst ignoring rules other repositories might already
have in place can lead to that what you're complaining about.

EPEL might be the most open repository at the moment regarding *who* can
upload new packages and probably has the most packagers behind it - but
the other repositories have the bigger community behind them.

> 00:55 <    mmcgrath> | I mean hell, how many of those 3rd party repos have even signed a cla?

Mike, if you're reading here: Why should other 3rd party repos sign some
sort of CLA? Especially: Sign it with/for whom and for what reason?

> 00:55 <    mmcgrath> | We're aiming much larger then they are and we have a much different structure as a result.

As said: EPEL is the new kid on the block at the moment. And what do you
mean with "aim larger"?

> I'm tired of trying to build bridges. It wore me off in fedora.us
> days and it's happening again with epel.

Thanks for your opinion.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20070506/867507c1/attachment-0005.sig>