On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 12:44 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > No offense, but as far as I'm concerned I'd trade your entire rpm update > for the changes I listed above. Nothing in the list of rpm changes I > saw was so earth shattering that it even comes close to the reality of > being able to use a sane SCM as a canoncial source repo IMO. And people > *have* been waiting *way* too long for this to happen...I was just > sitting down to start working on writing the changes myself (I hadn't > gotten to figuring out how the spec fields were handled in the rpmdb > yet, but I had gone through the rpmbuild -b?|-t?|--rebuild|--recompile > as well as the rpm -i processes looking for how to hook everything into > the existing source code and what changes to make, etc.) because it's > something that's so overdue. Now I find out that even though I've > gotten so fed up that I was willing to put my own time in to make it > happen (which is well out of my field as a kernel developer) that it > doesn't even matter if I'm willing to do so, I'm blocked. That sucks in > ways I can't even describe. > I could definitely care less about direct scm interaction in rpmbuild and care much more for cleaning up the rpm codebase and the fairly good sized changes to making the rpm interface more consistent and more hackable. So, I'm sure it's a shame that you didn't get what you want, but these things haven't been going on in secret. A look at the rpm git tree will show you that. rpm is in the middle of a good sized code reorg. You really can't expect them devels to drop everything to implement your feature, can you? -sv -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
