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

Re: RPM roadmapping



Hello Rahul,

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Pyrpm is described as "PyRPM is an experimental project to look at rpm 
> package management". It is a prototyping tool. Not a implementation meant 
> to be used by users currently unlike Yum (which I think is what you are 
> referring to as pyyum).

okay, you did never use PyRPM. I played with pyrpm and it looks acceptable
for different actions and unfortunately I played just less with pyyum which
is included there (sorry, I'm to lazy to verifiy whether it's really called
pyyum) and it also could be an interesting way. Reading this and reading
further on at the list, it already sounds a bit as there's no interest to
walk *really* a new and radical way regarding RPM. Why? What is preventing?

When looking back e.g. to soft dependencies, I remember that they just were
refused for obivious reasons by individuals having the right position at
Fedora (or Red Hat). You maybe treat this as flame, but this is what the
feedback from that time looked like.

The end of the song normally is: Everybody wants new features, nobody wants
to implement them or when they're getting implemented nothing should break
or change because the packaging management system is very basic, everything
has to be 100% backward compatible but in the same way; it should be legacy
free as well on the other hand. Wrong world. Maybe you can see, what the
real problem behind the doors is. Otherwise, please try to open your eyes.


Greetings,
  Robert


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