On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 6:05 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
<stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>
>> 2009/12/29 Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>:
>>>
>>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 2009-12-28 at 11:42 -0800, David E. Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 28, 2009, at 11:23 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The user experience is quite a bit more important than people with
>>>>>>> scripts such as Devrim's. If we are going to offer the service we
>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>> do so in a manner that is useful and productive to the consumers of
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> service.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That includes scriptability, so that third parties can build services
>>>>>> on top of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Certainly. I am just saying that if we have 20 people it will
>>>>> negatively
>>>>> impact and 20,000 it will positively impact.. the 20 people need to
>>>>> suck
>>>>> it up.
>>>>
>>>> Presumably the packages that rely on the existing URLs are actually
>>>> being used by large numbers of end-users, who will all be sad if they
>>>> break.
>>>
>>> I might be wrong but I don't think we have that many users that are
>>> regulary rebuilding rpms from source with the original tar.gz being on
>>> pgfoundry...
>>
>> Well, the big users would be Devrim (RPMs) and I guess whomever does
>> debian packages of the things.
>>
>> But there are quite a number of companies that build their own RPMs,
>> either completely on their own or off slightly modified specs.
>
> well yeah but that might sum up to a dozends of people that will have to wit
> for an updated spec file vs. we having to hack up fusionforge code and have
> it maintained over years...
I can't speak to the maintenance effort but I wouldn't dismiss the
problem too lightly. I rebuild RPMs from source not infrequently - it
is often the case that the source RPM is a great deal more portable
than the binary RPM.
...Robert