Am Sunday 04 June 2006 00:34 schrieb Pascal Bleser:
Richard Bos wrote:
Op zaterdag 3 juni 2006 15:45, schreef Pascal Bleser:
The idea behind this is to be able to add a channel using the command: smart --install channel-<whatever name>
It's even easier to provide .channel files somewhere (like the .repo files in the Build Service), and just do
smart channel --add http://......../guru.channel smart channel --add http://......../packman.channel
Not sure whether this is easier from a user perspective. In your case the user needs to remember the url pointing to the channel repository. In my proposal it is not needed to remember this. One could for example use smart's functionality to find the channel rpm. Once the correct rpm (providing the desired channel), just execute 'smart install channel-<name>'. Or the more lazy type of user could execute 'smart install '*<name>*.' and have the channel installed that way. The only requirement is to have all channel rpms in a common place. Just like the rpmkey rpms that I maintain at the moment.
That's correct, good point. I'd rather name them smart-channel-* though ;)
Your proposal just a *.channel repository is easier from a packager perspective, as there is not rpm needed. The advantage of having the channel files in an rpm, is that those gets updated automatically when the corresponding channel file gets updated. This is the same for the rpmkey rpms.
Yep, you're right.
The best place to host those channel rpms are of course suse itself as they get than mirrored automatically. But as you already stated that might not be possible due to law implications.
s/might/will/
I started a thread/discussion with the SUSE folks about that when openSUSE started. I was asking them whether it would be possible to do some refinements in YaST2, to have it fetch a list of repositories from, say, opensuse.org and propose them to the end-user as additional repos.
It became pretty clear that it wouldn't be possible, because of ridiculous court rulings in the US and Germany (e.g. the Heise case), where "linking" to a resource that provides a package that under certain circumstances and/or jurisdictions would be.. well.. "attackable" in court, is already sufficient for potential trouble.
The issue was a task to.. mm.. I think it was Adrian, to take it to Novell's legal dept, but there was never any feedback on it (and it was in November 2005). Dunno if anything came back about that.. Adrian ?
The problem is that this decisions needs to be made for each software seperatly. For example it is very unlikely that this would be ever possible with DeCSS, but there are maybe chances for other stuff like mp3 playback. This will of course take much resources for each package at the legal department :/ bye adrian -- Adrian Schroeter SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany email: adrian@suse.de --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-help@opensuse.org