On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 11:38:59AM +0200, Robert Scheck wrote: > IMAO this is nothing that has to be discussed at advisory board. Or are we > going to discuss glibc vs. uclibc or similar things there, too? Thanks. If the board had decided in the past to chose using only glibc because the developer of uclibc has become actively non-cooperative, then we sure would do so. The rpm5 political issue has been too often an issue of the board in the past, and we should try to keep it there, in the past. There is no benefit in Fedora carrying an alternative package to a critical base system component with an anti-upstream. At the very least we derail the efforts of the in-house rpm development. That's all a political discussion. The technical divergencies follow from the non-cooperation policy. FWIW some of the decisions that made rpm5 incompatible to Fedora/RHEL were made known to rpm5's developer beforehand and he didn't care about it. In fact if you just try to conatct the devloper and say that this and this is an issue in Fedora and whether he could make that a compile time switch you will probably get very nasty vocal attributes in return. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpEm6wpeRr19.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
