On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 07:17 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > I don't ever recall Paul saying that (committing to > supporting/maintaining a forked rpm long-term). Maybe I just missed > that (or is senility sinking in already?)... After the meeting in the fbl list we discussed me talking to Paul about it. I did. > For the record, I'll be honest, I'm against forking (away from > rpm.org/jbj). > > Sure, jbj is abrasive and in-your-face at times, but I see most of that > simply as his being protective of his rpm baby, much like you (Seth) are > of yum (except you're kinder/gentler about it! (: ). Now, I'm not privy > to the details of his "leaving" redhat, or the depth of his animosity > surrounding that, but based on my own observations so far, I'm not (yet, > at least) convinced that his attitude necessarily precludes working > *with* him. > > And, from a *technical* point of view, I see no reason to fork either. > The only technical arguments I've heard so far are things like "feature > X is crazy!", but from my reading of: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/rpm-devel > Most/all of those "feature X's" are optional and/or can be disabled if > need-be. Have you seen the rpmtag_arch removals from last week and the rpmrc movement? We're not going to be able to merge those soon from what I can see. it's the foundation for everything we do. we have already forked it. We just need to own up to our fork. -sv _______________________________________________ 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
