On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 02:24:49PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > 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 don't think anyone did. Patrick was working from the rpm spec I think that says that header is 64MB. It was not. > > 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. Well, we have changed rpm in fedora serveral other times too... zstd compression most recently. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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
