[Bug 226377] Merge Review: rpm

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

On Friday, 24 August 2007 at 13:31, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 11:38:59AM +0200, Robert Scheck wrote:
> > IMAO this is nothing that has to be discussed at advisory board. Or are we
> > going to discuss glibc vs. uclibc or similar things there, too? Thanks.
> 
> If the board had decided in the past to chose using only glibc because
> the developer of uclibc has become actively non-cooperative, then we
> sure would do so. The rpm5 political issue has been too often an issue
> of the board in the past, and we should try to keep it there, in the
> past.
> 
> There is no benefit in Fedora carrying an alternative package to a
> critical base system component with an anti-upstream. At the very
> least we derail the efforts of the in-house rpm development.
> 
> That's all a political discussion. The technical divergencies follow
> from the non-cooperation policy.
> 
> FWIW some of the decisions that made rpm5 incompatible to Fedora/RHEL
> were made known to rpm5's developer beforehand and he didn't care
> about it. In fact if you just try to conatct the devloper and say that
> this and this is an issue in Fedora and whether he could make that a
> compile time switch you will probably get very nasty vocal attributes
> in return.

That depends on who contacts him. To me, he's been quite approachable,
but I imagine there are some @redhat folks he won't talk to. IMHO your
generalization is unfounded.

Regards,
R.

-- 
Fedora contributor http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DominikMierzejewski
Livna contributor http://rpm.livna.org MPlayer developer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
        -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"