On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 20:03 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: > On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 10:06 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > > On 1/25/06, Andreas Bierfert <andreas.bierfert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I would love to see this in fc5 :) and of course fc and fe packages using it ^^ > > > > Unless the tools that live on top of librpm understand how to make use > > and to negotiate the new tags, having them be used in fc or fe > > packages isn't going to be particularly useful unless you do all your > > package administration via rpm on the cmdline. In fact it might lead > > to unexpected and undesired behavior. I don't think these new tags > > should be allowed as part of FC or FE policy until its clear that the > > new tags behave as expected when the default in-core tools have to > > deal with them. And any understanding as to potentially problems is > > going to require some local system testing from people who are > > interested in using these tags in their packaging. I wouldn't hold > > your breath waiting for these new features to be acceptible packaging > > policy. I fully expect there is going to have to be work done to > > support these new tags by tools other than rpm cli. Until we know > > where we stand with the tools that intereact with librpm, i say no > > dice. > > Getting rpm 4.4.4 into FC5 would be the first step though. If it doesn't > go into FC5 it'll probably be yet another half a year before people will > even start looking into those things. I certainly would like to see rpm > >= 4.4.4 in FC5. It's way too late to switch FC5 to a newer version of RPM. Jeremy -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
