[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: redhat abe



Ralf Corsepius wrote:

On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 08:16 -0500, Jeff Johnson wrote:


Thomas Vander Stichele wrote:






c) nothing more was ever offered as negative feedback on mach than "it
uses apt" (a fact that is easily changeable, obviously);



Well clearly, having mach rely on a package that is not included in any Red
Hat product,


RH has the ability to change this at any time.



So does mach.




presents certain logistical difficulties.
That should be obvious.


It is not - RH has had no problems in adding yum support and has no
problem in adding and removing other packages at any time at RH's free
will.



It's not obvious that mach (as is) will never function on any Red Hat (or Red Hat packages)
based distro unless apt is included? I beg to differ.


Yum, because in python, and because developed more closely with other Red Hat tools
like anaconda originally at YDL and now locally at Duke, was an easier cost/benefit decision.


apt, because in C++, with concepts like Suggests: and Recommends:
and Enhances: and pinning and a back-tracking depsolver and alien etc etc, is a far far more
complicated integration effort with a less clear cost/benefit analysis.


Red Hat has very few people able or willing to support apt, for historical, if not
for other reasons.


For example instead of adding yum and keeping up2date, RH could have
tried to help apt. - IMO, this is all politics and not at all
technically motivated.



I have helped apt-rpm, and have helped smartpm, and have helped Red Carpet, and other distros technically with rpm for years.

And I work for Red Hat.

Does that count?



And, FWIW, I have suggested repeatedly that apt be added to FC internally to Red Hat
in spite of the cost of attempting to maintain Yet Another Depsolver. The previous line
basically summarizes the majority of the feedback that I have heard:


FC needs fewer depsolvers that work more reliably.


Isn't the solution obvious? Implement one unified depsolver into rpm
which behaves exactly as you envision it, instead.



What do you think I am trying to do, grow bananas in Chapel Hill?


I have been trying to build the infrastructure for a unified package manager
for *years*. And so has Red Hat, but the politics are insurmountable imho.

Where have you been?

73 de Jeff


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]