>>>> "TL" == Tom Lane <tgl(a)redhat.com>
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