On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:08:17 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > 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 /me thinks a summary like that is not needed for subscribers of this list to understand how the previous mails in this thread are meant to be understood correctly. The "RPM stale locks" problem is a serious issue for the average user despite the "rm -f /var/lib/rpm/__db.*" work-around being available. What works for Red Hat engineers and people who know about that work-around, is not accepted by other people at all. In their opinion, such a behaviour of RPM is plain broken and "stinks, if it isn't the same in Red Hat Enterprise Linux". Those spontaneous "RPM lock ups" haven't made Red Hat Linux look good. > 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. Deja vu? I've seen him recommending, that --rebuilddb is not necessary [anymore]. FWIW, whenever I recommend "rm -f /var/lib/rpm/__db.* ; rpm -vv --rebuilddb" myself, it is because experience has it that sometimes this has helped further than removal of the tmp files. You never know what the user has done to make RPM "hang". > 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. It looks much more like an attempt at offering a _framework_ for Fedora Legacy, in particular input for discussion. Warren is somewhat over-ambitious IMO, because he's the "let's do it -- push it forward -- get it going" type of guy who doesn't seem to mind doing most of the preparations himself and making lots of proposals for policies. Without such a work-force, fedora.us would not have become reality. That makes a project in its early stages look as if everything is ready and gives potential consumers the impression that they can count on the project. But I have doubts that Fedora Legacy has enough human resources who can tackle upcoming problems [if any]. Instead of putting a big effort into starting an open community project, other individuals would rather sit and wait and e.g. release a self-made rpm on their private web space. > 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. I would appreciate if any of those virtual developers would speak for themselves. Most of the proposals posted to this list have seen only acknowledgements. Being mostly a lurker on this list, I find the discussions tiresome, and it is not clear at all who will contribute what. --
Attachment:
pgp00142.pgp
Description: PGP signature
