On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 06:06:57PM -1000, Warren Togami wrote: > Warren Togami wrote: > >R P Herrold wrote: > > > >> > >>There is a known path for recovery from the RPM 'stale locks' > >>issue which does NOT require a non-security RPM 'update' -- > > To me it is laughable to expect users to tolerate this. Though you are > entitled to have your own opinion. The users can decide on their own now. > > >>Others may come out differently in all good intent; but except > >>for the unresolved subtle RPM exploit path mentioned on a > >>public list (which should properly be resolvable as the > >>SELinux capability extensions are rolled in [which will not > >>happen in fedora-legacy]), a change to rpm-4.2.x is just a > >>"upgrade to the latest and greatest." No thanks. > >> > > > >rpm-4.2.x is NOT what Fedora Legacy is doing. > > > >http://www.fedora.us/wiki/LegacyRPMUpgrade > > Also the page states that upgrading RPM is not required to us the > "updates" channel. So o Red Hat, Inc. and R P Herrold are laughable o FedoraLegacy is supposed to do what you wrote in the Wiki, although even the person with the Legacy Leader cap (or fedora) refrained from it. o rpm is not required as an upgrade, but people not doing it "are also unsupported by the Fedora Legacy team." by your decision. o Jeff Johnson is quoted by you to recommend to not to use rpm --rebuilddb. Jeff almost got a stroke, when I asked him about that. What is next? Users of third party repos are also expelled and unsupported? Hosting Legacy at fedora.us is probably already implying your set of policies upon it. Once again there is a pattern of 'Le Fedora-legacy, c'est moi'. I find that this discussion and false assertions are thwarting development of this project. You are driving developers away. -- Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
pgp00141.pgp
Description: PGP signature
