On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:27:34 +0200 Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Honestly while it's good to think about this now, it may become a moot point unless they can get rpm5 to be completely co-installable with rpm(.org). Our current packaging guidelines forbit any conflicts and that means it's up to rpm5 set up all the different paths for their package as to not conflict, override, usurp the rpm.org on the system. If they can do that, /and/ it's still usable for whatever they want to do with it, then we can make a political decision, if its even needed. If it doesn't conflict with rpm.org, if it doesn't disrupt rpm.org's actions on the system, if it doesn't take over calls from other tools that use rpmlib, if it doesn't otherwise disrupt the normal operation of a system wrt rpm(.org), is there really a problem in having the package existing in Fedora? Yes it sends something of a mixed message wrt what rpm we support, but that can be answered with wiki pages, and surely enforced in the comps file. (Note that these are just my opinions, I do not speak as FESCo, nor do I hold a position within the Fedora Board) -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
