Unneeded assertions (supposed to have been: RPM upgrade discussion)

[Warren Togami]

Axel Thimm wrote:
> 
> o Red Hat, Inc. and R P Herrold are laughable

The entity and individuals no, but regarding that particular statement 
it is my personal opinion that it is a teribly poor situation to even 
suggest that.  It is bad that we went for so long with "kill rpm and 
erase the lock files" as the only supported solution.

> o FedoraLegacy is supposed to do what you wrote in the Wiki, although
>   even the person with the Legacy Leader cap (or fedora) refrained
>   from it.

What does this mean?

> o rpm is not required as an upgrade, but people not doing it "are also
>   unsupported by the Fedora Legacy team." by your decision.

It seemed like a good decision, and better than forcing everyone to 
upgrade to RPM.  If they want to avoid upgrading RPM, then they can't 
use the "legacy" channel which has the package manager that depends on 
that upgraded version of RPM.  How is this unreasonable?

> o Jeff Johnson is quoted by you to recommend to not to use rpm
>   --rebuilddb. Jeff almost got a stroke, when I asked him about that.
> 

I have not read anything to the contrary coming from him.  The last 
thing I recall reading from Jeff indicated that --rebuilddb was 
unnecessary to deal specifically with the rpm deadlock issue.  I would 
invite him to elucidate the situation.

> What is next? Users of third party repos are also expelled and
> unsupported? 

Slippery slope arguments are usually born out of emotional illogic.

 > Hosting Legacy at fedora.us is probably already implying
 > your set of policies upon it.

Write a complete set of alternative policies and procedures, with the 
infrastructure and documentation to back it up.  Then make it 
collaborative.  Then let the group decide.

The current proposal for Legacy development was born out of the lack of 
anything else being written, or even discussed.  Simply dismissing 
something without proposing a complete alternative is not productive.

> 
> Once again there is a pattern of 'Le Fedora-legacy, c'est moi'. I find
> that this discussion and false assertions are thwarting development of
> this project.

Given the complete lack of initiative and direction by anyone else here, 
I stepped in and offered a structured and proven solution based upon the 
highly successful fedora.us development model.  I even proposed this 
plan to those who said they wanted to be Legacy leaders during early 
December, but I got ZERO replies (other than Michael).

If the majority here dislikes what I am doing, then say so.  Then 
subsequently be prepared to step in and keep the ball rolling with your 
own solutions.

Heck, even if you agree with the direction that I am pushing, I 
realistically cannot remain pushing initiatives here.  My time is very 
short after January 5th.

Unless others show more initatiative this project will die.  I 
personally do not even USE the distributions that Legacy would support, 
but I worked hard on this because I wanted to give the community at 
least the chance.

> 
> You are driving developers away.

Given the lack of prior discussion, I wondered if they were even here to 
begin with.  It is my hope that this proposed framework will at least 
give them the chance to make it succeed.

Please feel free to discuss and improve the proposed framework.

Warren