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

Re: RPM roadmapping



On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 15:40 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> Hey all,
> 
> I know I'm opening up Pandoras box here but what the heck, it's Friday and 
> I'm feeling slightly bored...
> 
> With RPM 4.4.2.1 fresh out and 4.4.x branched off to maintenance mode, 
> time to start looking forward to next major release. While the focus will 
> be largely in cleaning up and streamlining the codebase, it can't 
> realistically be all about just that.
> 
> Not everybody is on rpm-maint list and we'd like to hear the wishes of 
> (Fedora) developers/packagers too. So: what have you always wanted to do 
> with rpm, but wasn't able to? Or the other way around: what you always 
> wished rpm would do for you? What always annoyed you out of your mind?
> 
> Just to kick off the discussion (like it was necessary, this is rpm 
> afterall...), here are a few things that have been brought up in various 
> forums and private discussions, but don't feel constrained by these items, 
> they're just some examples of what's being considered:

A few of the bugs on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/showdependencytree.cgi?id=multilib
are assigned to to RPM. The most important one is probably the lack of
arch-specific Requires: and BuildRequires: (#235755).

I don't think we'll manage #235757 in time for Fedora 8 but it would be
good to get it done (and the packages updated accordingly) for Fedora 9.
(Note that comments 3-19 are about the short-term hack we did for F7,
not the real subject of the bug).

Thoughts on #235758 would be appreciated.

-- 
dwmw2


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