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

Re: [Bug 226377] Merge Review: rpm



On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 01:53:08PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> Yes, we're talking about something we haven't even seen yet.
> Everybody, please just calm down.

Well, we don't want to see it. :)

Actually we, or some of us, have seen the source (not the package) and
the roadmap. If it's clear that we can't live with the base product
what can a packaging layer still change? Unpatching all of rpm5's
unneeded features is like diffing rpm5 and rpm.org ;)

> All in all, rpm5 would have to be crippled in several ways to ensure not 
> to disturb distro rpm and the (python) tool stack above it. So much so, I 
> doubt it'd be of much interest to anybody at that point. It would be far 
> better served by something like Fedora Alternatives which was proposed 
> originally but never materialized: a repository where replacing the system 
> kernel, glibc and whatever for experimenting is ok and even encouraged.

Experimenting with alternative kernels, libcs etc. may be encouraged
as one can think of potential future benefits to Fedora/RHEL, but in
the case of rpm5 where a RHEL/Fedora request is currently known to be
ignored just because it comes from RHEL/Fedora is not worth
encouraging or otherwise endorsing.

I think rpm5 needs to stay out. Fesco can ban for technical reasons,
the board for political and I think the latter has already
happened. After all Fedora through Red Hat has invested into manpower
and further resources because rpm5 (at that time w/o that particular
name) was politically unbearable.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Attachment: pgpuFrN8uHtbF.pgp
Description: PGP signature


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