>>>>> "TL" == Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: TL> Hmm, I understand that upstream might be less than tractable, but TL> surely that doesn't prevent us from carrying our own patches that TL> enforce restrictions that Fedora deems desirable. Well, personally I don't invest a lot of time in the idea that rpm will suddenly grow sanity; I concentrate on packaging issues and how they relate to the rpm we actually have. Besides, the packaging guidelines currently cover releases that will almost certainly not receive any version of rpm that is updated to fix this issue, so its still a reasonable thing for the packaging committee to discuss. TL> I don't like carrying distro-private patches more than anyone TL> else; but when you're talking about fundamental bits of distro TL> infrastructure, allowing someone else to dictate our project TL> policy doesn't seem right. You seem to assume that the Fedora rpm developers will agree with you and decide to change rpm; that is certainly not a given. I would, however, encourage you to pursue that line of inquiry. Getting a check for this kind of thing into rpmlint would be an expedient stopgap measure, but without the packaging committee actually writing a guideline, rpmlint complaints don't carry all that much weight. - J< -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
