On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 10:27:34AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 04:16 -0400, bugzilla@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional > > comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. > > > > Summary: Merge Review: rpm > > > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226377 > > > > > > > > > > > > ------- Additional Comments From redhat@xxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-08-24 04:16 EST ------- > > Panu, I already did this job more or less - but for rpm5. It is less pain and > > seems to work well. If next week matches, my rpm5 package should reach review > > and then you can copy over bits from there to get the rpm.spec file friendly to > > rpmlint (of course, there will be some warnings and errors further on, because > > rpm is a special package). > > IMO, we will not be able to avoid to have a management decision on how > to proceed with JBJ's rpm5. > > AFAICT, Fedora leadership clearly has set up a clear decision not to > switch to rpm5 but to continue with rpm.org. > > => IMO, there should not be any room for rpm5, may-be except as an > optional add-on package. I think this decision has already been made when Jeff had announced rpm as unmaintained and the ball was picked up by what is now under rpm.org. I think rpm5 in Fedora is dangerous. At the very least it reverses the ordering of letters and digits and thus breaks a ton of packaging techniques. Any *-1.fc8 -> *.1.1.fc8 upgrade path is busted for example. An rpm5 package in Fedora would have to bend the paths as to leave /var/lib/rpm alone (perhaps rpm5 already uses /var/lib/rpm5, I don't know). -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp1CRqRTU1N4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
