[fab] dealing with rpm.

seth vidal skvidal at linux.duke.edu
Thu Aug 24 15:19:25 UTC 2006


On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 09:21 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> seth vidal wrote:
> 
> > Here's something that's come out of all this:
> > 
> > 1. jeff has said he is not upstream:
> > https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/rpm-devel/2006-August/001374.html

his words:


"And I'm not upstream rpm, I am a fork of RPM with a single developer  
active."


> ...
> > 2. he says a fork of rpm for designs of other folks working on it has
> > his blessing 
> > https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/rpm-devel/2006-August/001375.html
> 

More:
Look at the FUD: "de facto" "care". The issue is that vendors like RH  
and SuSE no longer care to fix problems, just look at rpm bugs in bugzilla,  
some of those bugs go back years and years and years.

Look, you want me to bless your rpm fork? You have my blessings.

Now go away, please, I have rpm-4.4.7 to release.
end quote


> To be fair to jbj, I think you're twisting his words a bit in your 
> summaries of his statements.

I didn't twist anything - I quoted.



> Frankly, I'm uncomfortable with this, and my opinion from
> http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2006-August/msg00115.html
> is generally still the same, ie, I see no *technical* justification for 
> a fork.  I consider any rpm development without jbj to be mistake, ie, I 
> value highly the bugfixes and features jbj has fixed/added since Fedora 
> stopped updating rpm (from jbj-upstream).  I'm concerned that these will 
> get lost if a fork happens.
> 
> Now, there does appear be a some momentum for new development/fork 
> (whatever you want to call it), so if that is going to happen, I think 
> it prudent to kindly request jbj participate (ie, be involved) in this 
> new-rpm-order.  I think the gesture is owed to him, even if it doesn't 
> have much chance to garner a positive response.

We'll see how things pan out.

-sv





More information about the fedora-advisory-board mailing list