On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 08:54:12PM +1000, Alan Milligan wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Sorry, I should have started this in a separate thread to begin with, so > please bear with me for continuing here. > > As stated earlier, we have a firm agenda to ensure up2date remains both > that current with Python and a generalised rpm gui tool. > > As with the earlier post, I'm not too concerned about missing FC3 > cutoff, we're all committed to the long-term of Fedora. > > As outlined, removing the OpenSSL package, rpclib, and other sins, is by > no means trivial (although not that complicated either). But it is > certainly too complex to expect bugzilla to usefully manage the process. > I'm missing some background here I belive. I currently have no intention of removing rpclib (rhnlib you mean?), etc. I'm curious why you want to? Any RFE's/bugs etc for up2date need to land in bugzilla. > At the least, it requires coordination and discussion to agree that all > parties interests are met - I am not interested in doing work that's not > going to be accepted, nor in working upon out of date, irrelevant > images, or difficult back-ports. > > Can I please be put in touch with the affected RH people (on or off the > list), so we can decide upon a manner to proceed, somewhat in the vane > of other open projects we all know and love? I'm the primary developer of up2date. Project decisions as to what I add/fix/spend time on/etc is based on mangement feedback based on Bugzilla entries. Discussing it in email is fine, but before anything gets done, it's going to need to land in Bugzilla so I can get it properly prioritized. Adrian
