OT Re: [WBEL-users] Odd window drag behaviour

[Alex Tkachenko]

John,

I just have realized that I was replying to the original maintainer of
the Whitebox Linux. It looks silly to explain you the goals of the
project :)

My sincere apologies for that.

But I still think, that if you going to introduce the fixes yum channel,
let it be the separate channel, do not merge the fixes into the
mainstream (i.e. .../os/RedHat/RPMS) this won't lead to anything good.
I actually was doing this with RHL 7.3, and end up with terrible mix of
7.3, Fedora, Rawhide, Ximian and everything in between. Guess what - my
users can't install anything off the Net, and I have to recompile the
software for them and also track every damn piece I have back-ported.
And this is on top of other responsibilities I have.

So the bottom line - the fixes (or extras) channel is a big commitment,
although lots of users may benefit from that. The more I work with RHEL3
the more missed pieces I find. As usual, RedHat appears to be very
conservative, and have excluded everything which may affect the overall
system stability. In this light I can't understand, what is wrong with,
i.e, Tripwire? :) On the other hand, since the (if I am not mistaken)
rhl80 the MrProject segfaults on loading hierarchical projects, and that
is a two line fix - I won't believe nobody hit that but me (in planner,
included with fc2 the error does not seem to be present).

Have a great day,
Alex

On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 20:32, Alex Tkachenko wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 17:51, John Morris wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Alex Tkachenko wrote:
> > 
> > > It has a patch for RHEL version of metacity package - I have it 
> > > locally applied until it gets its way into the official update.
> > 
> > Ok, this one bugs me enough I'm wondering if it justifies pushing up a 
> > patched version of metacity instead of waiting for RedHat to get around to 
> > it in U3.  I know I'll be adding this patch to my own copies, but should 
> > it go into the mainline?  It would mark a departure from tracking RH 
> > exactly and that worries me.
> This is not the only problem with RHEL packages; I bet everybody comes
> up with some sort of local repository sooner or later, but this is
> exactly what it is: a local repository. The original goal is to keep the
> main distribution (whitebox, centos, tao, etc) as close to the original
> rhel, as possible, to make use of automatically distributed binary
> updates and third-party software. Believe me, once you start fixing
> packages yourself, you won't stop, and a year later you may find
> yourself maintaining your own distro. The original compatibility, so
> valuable because of the above reasons will be lost somewhere down the
> road.
> 
> So my advice - keep all the fixed packages clearly separated, and be
> ready to restore the original set should you need it (especially true in
> corporate environment). If you really need something more decent - go
> for Fedora.
> 
> Have a nice day,
> Alex
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Whitebox-users mailing list
> Whitebox-users@beau.org
> http://beau.org/mailman/listinfo/whitebox-users