seth vidal wrote:
Here's something that's come out of all this:
1. jeff has said he is not upstream:
https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/rpm-devel/2006-August/001374.html
...
2. he says a fork of rpm for designs of other folks working on it has
his blessing
https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/rpm-devel/2006-August/001375.html
To be fair to jbj, I think you're twisting his words a bit in your
summaries of his statements.
Here's what I'm thinking right now pending the discussion on monday at
rh:
...
anyway - that is most of what I'm going on right now.
what do y'all think?
Frankly, I'm uncomfortable with this, and my opinion from
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2006-August/msg00115.html
is generally still the same, ie, I see no *technical* justification for
a fork. I consider any rpm development without jbj to be mistake, ie, I
value highly the bugfixes and features jbj has fixed/added since Fedora
stopped updating rpm (from jbj-upstream). I'm concerned that these will
get lost if a fork happens.
Now, there does appear be a some momentum for new development/fork
(whatever you want to call it), so if that is going to happen, I think
it prudent to kindly request jbj participate (ie, be involved) in this
new-rpm-order. I think the gesture is owed to him, even if it doesn't
have much chance to garner a positive response.
-- Rex
_______________________________________________
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
