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

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

On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 19:22 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: 
> 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.

You corrected me on the fact that it doesn't require an rpm flag day to
change the headers.  That doesn't mean they wouldn't still be useful so
I could work without running a hacked up rpm locally, but it's no longer
the big issue it was.

> 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.

True, I never said it wasn't.  I said, in a nutshell, I need the headers
from RPM and that's it, everything else I can do elsewhere.

> > 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.

Sure, no problem.

> 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 lists rpm org so that people from other distro-camps can 
> comment too (remember that RPM isn't a Fedora-only thing).

When you consider that all I asked for was the headers, and the rest of
it *would* be Fedora specific, then I fail to see the justification for
proposing internal build system specifics to rpm-maint lists rpm org for
approval.  If it were more than the headers, then sure.  But just the
headers when everything else would be outside rpm?  No.  Especially
given that if it's as trivial as you say to add the headers, we could
just carry the ones we want locally without needing them to be upstream.
After all, as you pointed out, unpatched rpms will deal with the
packages just fine, it's only the building rpm that needs to be patched.
So even if we carried the patch in just our copy of rpm, our rpms would
still be usable on other systems (srpms would be a different matter, but
as this is all about doing a src repo instead of an srpm, it's a given
that someone else would need a patched up rpm to build our stuff

> 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.

If you've read this thread, and read those notes I sent, then you know
how much is written up so far.  It should at least be enough to know
where I'm headed.  If not, I apologize, but I don't really feel like
spending even *more* time writing things up to satisfy your request for
a proposal.  I've already got a certain contingent giving me grief for
the lack of real code so far, so I'd rather get to work on the code
stuff instead of more writing.  Besides, I work best when I'm both
designing and coding at the same time.  So now that I know there isn't a
db schema to worry about in the rpmdb and that adding the headers is
trivial, I'll just go do that and then proceed with making modifications
to a local koji build server and various dscm setups here on my own
where I can prototype things as I see fit.  Sorry to have bothered you.

Doug Ledford <dledford redhat com>
              GPG KeyID: CFBFF194

Infiniband specific RPMs available at

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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