On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 11:17 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > 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. This corresponds to my memory. > I think rpm5 in Fedora is dangerous. Exactly. In first place, using rpm5 in Fedora is dangerous to users. In second place, seeing rpm5 in Fedora (which could be read as Fedora supporting rpm5) is threatening the rpm.org project. In third place, setting up rpm5 not to conflict with "Fedora's" nominal rpm is a true technical challenge. Ralf _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
