Heads-up: brand new RPM version about to hit rawhide

[Panu Matilainen]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 20:12 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> Maybe the difference between what you are trying to say and are saying
> is the problem here.

Maybe misinterpreting what I said is part of the problem, but certainly 
not the only one: this thread got started rather backwards with 
out-of-the-blue wild handwaving about flag days and delaying things for 
something that's not even described anywhere, much less implemented. Also 
this thread has gotten all mixed up between RPM and Fedora package 
management SCM - what RPM implements is not necessarily equal to what 
Fedora uses / permits to use.

> You see, here's what I said (in a nutshell):
>
> "We need these headers, everything else can wait, but just adding these
> allows us to move forward in using exploded source repos.  All the other
> features a person might code into rpm can be added later because they
> can be worked around in the meantime via scripts, makefiles, macros,
> build system tweaks, etc."
>
> You responded:
>
> "Yeah, the headers are a no brainer - But doing something with them
> takes some effort and I don't have the time plus I got these fancy
> plans, so, umm, no...that'll have to wait until F11"
>
> And my response was:
>
> "Well, that's just fine...so I guess we can't make progress on things
> because those of us that are here and willing to work on this aren't
> allowed to."
>
> And your response was:
>
> "Hey, if you want to work on it, go ahead!  Don't get mad at me."
>
> So, my question is, which is it?  Are you going to block things, or not.
> I was angry because you said it would have to wait until F11 on the
> grounds of your grand plans, while all I asked for was just the headers,
> no more.  You *assumed* I wanted you to implement some sort of full
> featured support.  As did Seth.  People should what I wrote more closely
> instead of letting their imaginations run wild.  I asked for the bare
> minimum.  Now that we have that straightened out, let me rephrase the
> question.  Are the headers, and the headers alone, too much to ask for
> in the context of F10?

"Lets add some new tags and see if we can fit a design + implementation to 
them later" does not fly very well with me. RPM has enough examples of 
useless (and unused) tags already (quite possibly because they're easier 
to add than argue), I'm not particularly interested in adding more.

Before promising anything at all, I want to see a description of what you 
are really trying to accomplish short-term and long-term and how, posted 
to rpm-maint at lists.rpm.org so that people from other distro-camps can 
comment too (remember that RPM isn't a Fedora-only thing).

Let's see your proposal first and then we'll see what comes out of it and 
when. Arguing about tags, versions and schedules is waste of time at this 
stage.

 	- Panu -