On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 08:48 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 08:39:38AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 07:30 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 01:37:53AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 11:52 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de writes:
RC> On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 10:12 -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> The Java packages in Fedora which originally come from the JPackage > repo are the only packages which fall under this exception. And > those packages will always fall under this exception, forever and > ever, amen (or until something dramatic changes).
RC> So Fedora will never have java packages of its own and depend on RC> jpp?
I'm having trouble understanding how you get from spot's statement above to your conclusion.
There are some packages which come from jpackage and there are some that don't.
Then you might be able to explain why
- compatibility to packages from a 3rd party repo such as jpackage are
of any importance to Fedora.
Except that people ARE mixing jpp-packages with Fedora, just like they do with freshrpms, atrpms, livna, dribble and many others I don't see any difference.
I don't think it's bad that Fedora cares about compatibility with 3rd party repos,
Neither do I.
in fact I wish that this kind of mutual cooperation rather extends.
Exactly this is the point, I am asking: Why explicitly care about jpp?
OK, sorry I misunderstood you completely, I read your comments like criticism for cooperation.
Let me put it this way:
To me, it is a bit bewildering to see a project initially being launched as "integration platform for 3rd parties" to explicitly take one of its "rivals" into consideration as a "special exception" that someone labeled "forever, ... amen".
If "Fedora integration" really works out, then we should see "integrated packages" and external 3rd party providing add-on packages, which should be treated as private pleasures of those implementing it.
If Fedora wants to take external repos into account, then I'd prefer not to see a singular exception for jpp, but generally applicable rules. Unfortunately, I don't see how this can be implemented nor am I expecting much interest from inside Fedora to address this any time soon.
I can only guess about why jpp is treated "better" than other repos:
o one needs to start somewhere o java is a key technology also required for RHEL, so there is vital interest in RH for it.
Probably, only somebody @redcom.com can answer this, but I would not deny this thought.
o less patent encumbered/closed source parts than other repos
Patents yes.
Wrt. "non-free" I don't see that jpp is substantially different from how livna and other 3rd parties shipping "non-free"/non-OSI compliant package.
Wrt. voting, I am undecided, because, to me, the proposal boils down to deciding between two "mediocre compromises":
a) Accepting it would mean catering a pragmatical compromise, which isn't necessarily in the Fedora community's long-term interests and which might weaken OpenSource in longer terms.
b) Rejecting it would mean insisting on a position that isn't necessarily in RH's nor Fedora's interest wrt. java, technically is hardly resolvable, but would help the "wider community" (3rd parties).
I would have voted +1 if I'd sense this proposal to be a short-term compromise and precedence aiming at systematic integration of 3rd parties. Spot's comment lets me think this doesn't apply.
Ralf