On 9/12/2005 5:31 AM Scott Leighton wrote: > On Sunday 11 September 2005 7:57 pm, Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote: > > > As I said earlier, I would not object to a repository that > contained '3rd party' packages that SUSE makes no claim > of any responsibility.
AFAIK That is what the suse-Mirrors with the apt7yum/yast/.. repositories are doing atm. > > But the stuff I receive on the media in the box set implies, > at least to me, that it meets SUSE's quality standards and > has passed QC, so I can trust that I will encounter no > issues using any packages on that media. ACK. > Sorry, but I don't see how that would work. You say 'broken or > low quality packages would be removed', well who does that? It's > SUSE's name on the distro, in order to even know a package is > broken, they would have to QC it, incurring that expense. Why > should they bother? ACK here too. >> I would hold Novell 100% responsible for the SuSE Linux release but I >> would be inclined to allow more participation in the SuSE Linux OSS >> products (which I think would end up being of very good quality >> overall anyway). > > Hey, I have absolutely no objection to having 3rd party stuff on > a downloadable ISO or a repository online somewhere. I just think > that loading up the official boxed set distro with a bunch of > extra stuff unnecessarily increases the cost of producing the > product and would confuse (and potentially infuriate if they > were broken) new users who already have package overload. ACK. If it is in the official box, I would assume that SUSE tested it or would have left it off that box. OJ -- Wenn man diese CD rückwärts abspielt, sind "Die satanischen Verse" zu hören. Das ist aber nicht weiter schlimm. Schlimm ist, dass sie Windows installiert, wenn man sie vorwärts abspielt.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
