Re: Can you give me some feedback concerning plans for pyrpm?
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 02:10:33PM -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
Hey,
so as you are aware rpm5 is coming close to being submitted into
Fedora for inclusion. I would like to be able to use the very
contentious rpm5 discussion to set some precedents for future rpm-like
inclusions. Do you plan to submit pyrpm at some point? If so I would
like to talk to you about what some specifics concerning you plans. I
want to make sure that we set the technical bar that rpm5 needs to
reach fairly so that nearly the same technical measure can be applied
to pyrpm as well when the time comes for its entry so we can avoid any
appearance of favoritism.
Hello Jeff,
we've had very good results by being able to re-implement a few things
in pyrpm and thus experiment a bit faster than keeping stuck to existing
code.
Right now most results are being applied to yum via the yum-devel@ list
and that's where we want to merge our results with. Maybe pyrpm could be
still useful within Fedora, but I've not submitted an rpm for review yet.
Not sure what your end-criteria are for rpm5, but the existing points
on the advisory list sounded sane:
- the rpmdb should not get changed incompatibel, the ideal case would be
to get this even more documented. We have added code that tests if
pyrpm would write the same rpmdb as an existing one as one testcase
that looks at the stability of rpm headers and the rpmdb.
- Fedora should be as open as possible for new projects to join in.
- rpm.org was selected as current upstream default for Fedora.
I'll follow any final decision for rpm5 to see if anything would apply
to pyrpm. Feel free to send me a list with further "specifics" about
pyrpm if you need to know more details. Overall pyrpm wants to be
compatibel with existing code and does not change any header/rpmdb format.
Fedora already has many competing addons like yumex/pirut or
apt/smart and I think that is a good status of Fedora.
regards,
Florian La Roche