On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, T.J. Duchene wrote:
> In all fairness, you are quite correct, Chris.
>
> I stand corrected, and will clarify. The default Fedora kernel has
> NTFS disabled by default. In order to get it working, it requires
> replacement, installation of the ntfs module, or complete
> recompilation. My only real discontent with third party RPMs is that
> they don't always meet the QA standards of the Core distribution.
I'm going to have to call BS on this one.
For Livna, at least (which does provide a kmod-ntfs RPM), they generally
use the packaging guidelines from Fedora Extras, which are actually more
stringent than those previously used by Fedora Core. Right now (as you
said below), Core is in the process of getting merged into Extras, so the
entire distribution is getting re-reviewed and brought up to the more
defined standards of Extras. (This also enables the community to
participate in maintenance of previously Core packages, at least
theoretically.) So, no, I wouldn't claim third-party repositories don't
meet the QA standards of Core; they often exceed them (although this is
changing, fortunately).
> On the other hand, I hear that Fedora Core and Fedora Extras will be
> merged in the next release, so it may alleviate a lot of problems. I
> just wish that Livna and other archives followed the dependency chains a
> bit better so that you could use packages from any of the repositories
> you choose equally.
I've never really had an issue using Livna, aside from the occasional day
or two lag between a new kernel and the corresponding kmod RPMs. As their
FAQ says, most Livna contributors are involved in Fedora, as well. The
other third-party repos, well...I suspect they'll be improving before too
long.
Jima