Once upon a time, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> said: > Oh, I didn't fully understand your comment at the time. I automatically assumed > that "enabled in production" only means that the *code* is there, i.e. that > the version of rpm has been updated in preparation. Actually enabling this > while the proposal is being discussed is definitely NOT OK. It makes > mockery of the whole Change process and deliberation on fedora-devel and > the fesco ticket. I have to say, I didn't realize that the RPM format was being changed in a backwards-incompatible way. I don't see that mentioned ONCE in the change proposal, and that's a very large thing to miss. I think that alone is enough to kill any such proposal until the compatible versions of RPM are in widespread use. It has wide-ranging impact - we still have "rpmbuild-md5" for back compat for example (although that could probably be retired now; think EPEL 5 was that last thing that needed it?). That's needed for package developers working on multiple releases/versions; there'd need to be another back-compat rpmbuild (at least), for example for running on a desktop of Fedora 33 but working on a package for EPEL 7. -- Chris Adams <linux@xxxxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
