On Thu, January 27, 2005 7:59 pm, Jeff Spaleta said: > Feel free to read any intent you feel you need to into what I'm > saying. I'm looking at what I see as the historical 'implied' usage > of library naming scheme in use. I'd love to be told I am wrong, and > that this hasn't been a reason why the particular naming scheme has > been used in the past. But if this has been an reason in the past.. > its worth noting and trying to understand why it was deemed important > before. You feel this isn't an important issue... fine... your > opinion. But I want to make sure that everyone in this discussion has > a competent understanding of WHY we have the current naming scheme... > before myopic decisions are made with regard to what to do in the > future. Perhaps you could come up with some better objections to the proposals beyond some vague concern that someone might have some old software left on their system that might be unmaintained. Perhaps you could elucidate how you intend to make such a determination for every third party rpm in the ether. > You don't think this is an important issue.. fine... but your opinion > of its importance doesn't change whether or not the issue of > 'expiring' is a reason why the naming scheme is currently in use. > Regardless of what you think the correct path forward is... i think > its vitally important to have an understanding of WHY the current > naming scheme is being used to underpin any competent discussion about > how to change it. I'm not sure any of the vocal proponents of the > naming policy change have an understanding of why the current naming > scheme exists. Perhaps a more constructive conversation could ensue if it weren't interrupted by notions of providing protection from "unmaintained" software, that doesn't even exist today. You're demanding features from the proponents of change that don't even exist today. It's not helpful or constructive. > Once everyone has a good feel for why the current naming scheme > exists... maybe... sort of depends on whether the 'right' people's > priorities line up with yours. I'm not even sure the 'right' people > are even reading this thread any more so any further discussion may > very well be moot. Frankly, I don't think this point that seems so dear to you has helped anyone get a feel for why the current naming scheme exists. It sure doesn't protect against unmaintained 3rd party RPMS today. Sean
