On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 08:16 -0500, Jeff Johnson wrote: > Thomas Vander Stichele wrote: > > >c) nothing more was ever offered as negative feedback on mach than "it > >uses apt" (a fact that is easily changeable, obviously); > > > > Well clearly, having mach rely on a package that is not included in any Red > Hat product, RH has the ability to change this at any time. > presents certain logistical difficulties. > That should be obvious. It is not - RH has had no problems in adding yum support and has no problem in adding and removing other packages at any time at RH's free will. For example instead of adding yum and keeping up2date, RH could have tried to help apt. - IMO, this is all politics and not at all technically motivated. > And, FWIW, I have suggested repeatedly that apt be added to FC > internally to Red Hat > in spite of the cost of attempting to maintain Yet Another Depsolver. > The previous line > basically summarizes the majority of the feedback that I have heard: > > FC needs fewer depsolvers that work more reliably. Isn't the solution obvious? Implement one unified depsolver into rpm which behaves exactly as you envision it, instead. Ralf
