On Friday, 24 August 2007 at 13:31, Axel Thimm wrote: > 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. That depends on who contacts him. To me, he's been quite approachable, but I imagine there are some @redhat folks he won't talk to. IMHO your generalization is unfounded. Regards, R. -- Fedora contributor http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DominikMierzejewski Livna contributor http://rpm.livna.org MPlayer developer http://mplayerhq.hu "Faith manages." -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations" _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
