On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 01:53:08PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: > Yes, we're talking about something we haven't even seen yet. > Everybody, please just calm down. Well, we don't want to see it. :) Actually we, or some of us, have seen the source (not the package) and the roadmap. If it's clear that we can't live with the base product what can a packaging layer still change? Unpatching all of rpm5's unneeded features is like diffing rpm5 and rpm.org ;) > All in all, rpm5 would have to be crippled in several ways to ensure not > to disturb distro rpm and the (python) tool stack above it. So much so, I > doubt it'd be of much interest to anybody at that point. It would be far > better served by something like Fedora Alternatives which was proposed > originally but never materialized: a repository where replacing the system > kernel, glibc and whatever for experimenting is ok and even encouraged. Experimenting with alternative kernels, libcs etc. may be encouraged as one can think of potential future benefits to Fedora/RHEL, but in the case of rpm5 where a RHEL/Fedora request is currently known to be ignored just because it comes from RHEL/Fedora is not worth encouraging or otherwise endorsing. I think rpm5 needs to stay out. Fesco can ban for technical reasons, the board for political and I think the latter has already happened. After all Fedora through Red Hat has invested into manpower and further resources because rpm5 (at that time w/o that particular name) was politically unbearable. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpVk4eTLXene.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
