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.
> 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.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
06-18-2008, 05:45 PM
Karanbir Singh
rpmfusion status?
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.
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....
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
06-18-2008, 05:57 PM
"Ross S. W. Walker"
rpmfusion status?
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.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
06-18-2008, 06:00 PM
"Ross S. W. Walker"
rpmfusion status?
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.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
06-18-2008, 06:49 PM
Frank Cox
rpmfusion status?
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 ".
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.
if you go ask on the Fedora lists and their own lists at rpmfusion, I am
sure they will tell you Ignacio already did hint at what the
situation was though.
rpmfusion status?
Ignacio already did hint at what the 
