[fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available

[Michael Tiemann]

On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 15:30 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> 
> I'd rather our package mgmt direction be a bit more organized than
> reactionary responses to something that gets added one afternoon.

I think there are two separate problems.  The first, which may well be a
fait accompli, is "which version of rpm should be in fc6?"  The second,
which concerns me greatly, is "how/why the heck did we act/not act so
that we'd have no choice in this matter for fc6?"

It looks to me from the time line of the bug report that we've had
plenty of opportunity to hash out exactly how or whether we'd follow the
upstream RPM path well in advance of the fc6 cutoff.  Heck, it could
have made fc5!  But we, Red Hat, did not.  And we did not say why not.
And now it looks like it's too late, which means that a strategy of
inaction and non-response worked to achieve a tactical agenda that
somebody, I don't know who, is pursuing.  Bully for them.  But we owe it
to ourselves and the community, whether or not we can change our
decision about the rpm version packaged for fc6, to explain fully and
faithfully exactly why we've chosen to extend our divergence from
upstream.  I don't think an implicit "deal with it" is going to cut it.

M