On 9/9/2012 2:03 AM, Gary Gatling wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> I decided to ask if he would be willing to add an epoc tag as Ken
> suggested or be willing to become a maintainer or co-maintainer. I think
> he just continues to insist that rpm work in a way its not designed...
> (Have two versions of the
On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 09:42:58PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Please note the warning on the top of this page:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SoftwareCollections
> Except and until they are approved for use in Fedora, please do NOT
> setup your packages with SoftwareCollections.
Right, but th
On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 18:32:17 -0400
Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 02:03:32AM -0400, Gary Gatling wrote:
> > packages will clobber theirs. However, what I'm really trying to
> > achieve is the ability to install our package alongside the
> > distribution-supplied package. The ide
On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 02:03:32AM -0400, Gary Gatling wrote:
> packages will clobber theirs. However, what I'm really trying to
> achieve is the ability to install our package alongside the
> distribution-supplied package. The idea is that a user may be using the
So, it happens that this is a p
On Sunday, September 09, 2012 02:03 PM, Gary Gatling wrote:
So a question would be do I need to jump through more hoops so that:
" ...a user may be using the
distribution-supplied version for day-to-day work, but they may need to
install a pre-release to test a new fix, or to temporarily use a
p
On Sun, 2012-09-09 at 02:03 -0400, Gary Gatling wrote:
>
> " ...a user may be using the
> distribution-supplied version for day-to-day work, but they may need
> to install a pre-release to test a new fix, or to temporarily use a
> pre-release until a fix is deployed via YUM. It would be nice for
Renaming just the package doesn't solve problems of conflicting files.
Libraries and binaries provided by the two packages will have the same
name, so it's not possible to have both installed beacuse one conflicts
with the other.
The idea of just "install a pre-release version without uninstal
Hey guys,
I decided to ask if he would be willing to add an epoc tag as Ken suggested
or be willing to become a maintainer or co-maintainer. I think he just
continues to insist that rpm work in a way its not designed... (Have two
versions of the same software thing on a box)
Here is his response
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012, Ken Dreyer wrote:
With VirtualGL, if his main concern is that Fedora's RPMs will
overwrite the ones that he sells, could he just bump the Epoch tag in
his copies?
This is exactly what I did with custom rpms for opendnssec that depended
on proprietary PKCS#11 drivers and som
I don't see the reason for someone to install and use two versions of
the same thing and I think that renaming the package other than project
name is a bad idea...
Besides that, if the developer doesn't want that others redistribuite
his program he can always change the license or become co-main
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Gary Gatling wrote:
> If a upstream project somehow objects to someone packaging their software
> should you just give up and tell people that the upstream would prefer you
> download their self created rpms or is it considered acceptable to go ahead
> and package
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 7:09 PM, Ken Dreyer wrote:
>
> Well, there are occasions when upstream's priorities are somewhat
> antithetical to what we're doing in Fedora. And pissing off upstream
> is never a great idea :) I think the goal is tread carefully, walking
> the fine line of trying to chang
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Gary Gatling wrote:
> But like everything else he is talking about, I feel its not my problem. And
> I don't really care. Maybe thats evil/wrong of me?
Well, there are occasions when upstream's priorities are somewhat
antithetical to what we're doing in Fedora. And
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>
>
> That's not usually something Fedora does. The package name takes the
> name of the upstream project, because the package *is* the delivery
> option for that software in Fedora. We do not care that much about
> upstream RPMs that random pr
On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 16:54 -0400, Gary Gatling wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> I am working on a package called
> VirtualGL: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834127
>
>
> After contacting the upstream on their mailing list, they seem
> obsessed with being able to install their own rprms and m
Hello,
I am working on a package called VirtualGL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834127
After contacting the upstream on their mailing list, they seem obsessed
with being able to install their own rprms and my package together at the
same time. This seems odd / bad to me since only
16 matches
Mail list logo
