On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 20:12 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: Maybe the difference between what you are trying to say and are saying is the problem here.
Maybe misinterpreting what I said is part of the problem, but certainly not the only one: this thread got started rather backwards with out-of-the-blue wild handwaving about flag days and delaying things for something that's not even described anywhere, much less implemented. Also this thread has gotten all mixed up between RPM and Fedora package management SCM - what RPM implements is not necessarily equal to what Fedora uses / permits to use.
You see, here's what I said (in a nutshell): "We need these headers, everything else can wait, but just adding these allows us to move forward in using exploded source repos. All the other features a person might code into rpm can be added later because they can be worked around in the meantime via scripts, makefiles, macros, build system tweaks, etc." You responded: "Yeah, the headers are a no brainer - But doing something with them takes some effort and I don't have the time plus I got these fancy plans, so, umm, no...that'll have to wait until F11" And my response was: "Well, that's just fine...so I guess we can't make progress on things because those of us that are here and willing to work on this aren't allowed to." And your response was: "Hey, if you want to work on it, go ahead! Don't get mad at me." So, my question is, which is it? Are you going to block things, or not. I was angry because you said it would have to wait until F11 on the grounds of your grand plans, while all I asked for was just the headers, no more. You *assumed* I wanted you to implement some sort of full featured support. As did Seth. People should what I wrote more closely instead of letting their imaginations run wild. I asked for the bare minimum. Now that we have that straightened out, let me rephrase the question. Are the headers, and the headers alone, too much to ask for in the context of F10?
"Lets add some new tags and see if we can fit a design + implementation to them later" does not fly very well with me. RPM has enough examples of useless (and unused) tags already (quite possibly because they're easier to add than argue), I'm not particularly interested in adding more.
Before promising anything at all, I want to see a description of what you are really trying to accomplish short-term and long-term and how, posted to rpm-maint@xxxxxxxxxxxxx so that people from other distro-camps can comment too (remember that RPM isn't a Fedora-only thing).
Let's see your proposal first and then we'll see what comes out of it and when. Arguing about tags, versions and schedules is waste of time at this stage.
- Panu - -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
