On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 19:04 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 15:49 -0400, Michael Tiemann wrote: > > On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 15:30 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > > > > > I'd rather our package mgmt direction be a bit more organized than > > > reactionary responses to something that gets added one afternoon. > > > > I think there are two separate problems. The first, which may well be a > > fait accompli, is "which version of rpm should be in fc6?" The second, > > which concerns me greatly, is "how/why the heck did we act/not act so > > that we'd have no choice in this matter for fc6?" > > > > It looks to me from the time line of the bug report that we've had > > plenty of opportunity to hash out exactly how or whether we'd follow the > > upstream RPM path well in advance of the fc6 cutoff. Heck, it could > > have made fc5! But we, Red Hat, did not. And we did not say why not. > > And now it looks like it's too late, which means that a strategy of > > inaction and non-response worked to achieve a tactical agenda that > > somebody, I don't know who, is pursuing. Bully for them. But we owe it > > to ourselves and the community, whether or not we can change our > > decision about the rpm version packaged for fc6, to explain fully and > > faithfully exactly why we've chosen to extend our divergence from > > upstream. I don't think an implicit "deal with it" is going to cut it. > > > > In my opinion the reasons we can give for not implementing it are: > > 1. the policy decisions for automated action are not simple and not > hashed out, yet. > > 2. the primary focus for fc5 was making anaconda and yum play nicely > together. Adding some changes to rpm would have simply been too much > work > > 3. rpm is a major, major component of how the distro does what it does, > changes to rpm should be ultraconservative which don't seem to be the > case with all the new bits being added to the 4.4.X releases as it goes > along (YAML for no apparent reason, for example). If we change rpm we > have to check a bunch of components b/c of how deeply rpm is rooted into > things. +1 on each. Thanks for porting this out from the board list, Seth. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
