[ATrpms-devel] Re: mythtv spec

[Chris Petersen]

> So, what makes livna preferable to ATrpms?

I don't use atrpms for my mythtv stuff, either.  Needed a spec that 
worked with cvs, your cvs stuff was gone, so made an updated one from 
scratch.

If livna wants to use my spec, they're welcome to it.  Despite Warren's 
assuring me that "everyone is working together" to create a global 
repository (which I do think would be a good thing), I still see the 
fighting between livna, freshrpms, etc. even though they're all supposed 
to be working on extras together, they're still fighting it out about 
things that won't go into extras.

> There is no such thing, the fedora-extras rules were just thrown
> overboards by Red Hat itself, and now spot tries to come up with a new
> set. Certainly far from being carved in stone, and you may participate
> on its creation on the fedora-packaging list.

ahh.  well, not that you mention it, I see that the packaging-guidelines 
wiki I thought was a redhat.com thing was actually at fedoraproject.org.

I'm honestly fed up with the whole politics of the redhat/fedora stuff 
that I'm serious considering switching to ubuntu to get away from it. 
I've been bitten too many times by files from competing repos not 
working with each other (like just today, something conflicted, rpm 
updated but apt didn't and now apt doesn't work -- had to use yum to 
grab a new apt)

Anyway, like I said, I'd rather not get into this stuff.  It seems pety 
to me, and just gets in the way of progress as a whole.

-Chris