On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 20:21, Michael Schwendt wrote:
There is one particular thing I don't understand. Once an
arbitrary
repository contains a new package, people don't hesitate to download and
install it. When it's broken or not as usable as expected, they either
downgrade or try the next repository (this experience is based on comments
seen in message boards), repeating this procedure regularly. But when a
package of the same software is in a public queue of packages to be
reviewed before they get published, people avoid such packages like the
plague and don't give the packages a try and don't leave feedback. I think
the community can do better than that. But the Fedora community has a long
road to take to realize that--like with the Debian GNU/Linux project--it's
better to spend a combined effort on a primary source of reliable and
maintained packages than to either want everything maintained by Red Hat
in "Fedora Core" or to keep an excessive list of repositories maintained
by individuals and live with interoperability problems.
Perhaps most users do not like to do the hard work of committing to QA a
package without seeing it in action first?
If the CPU cycles could be spared to autobuild newly-submitted packages
(under a chroot, and perhaps with a system that automatically notifies
the packager when a build fails and ban him/her from further submitting
new packages if X number of unbuildable packages are left unfixed),
would-be testers could try out packages they are interested in, *then*
review the spec.
This would have the added benefit of being certain that the package
someone reviews has been known to compile in a pristine Fedora
(+updates) environment. Otherwise there is the risk that a package would
not build on someone's machine and that someone blamed the packaging.
My 2 cents,
- Michel