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

[Paul W. Frields]

On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 19:04 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 15:49 -0400, Michael Tiemann wrote:
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> In my opinion the reasons we can give for not implementing it are:
> 
> 1. the policy decisions for automated action are not simple and not
> hashed out, yet.
> 
> 2. the primary focus for fc5 was making anaconda and yum play nicely
> together. Adding some changes to rpm would have simply been too much
> work
> 
> 3. rpm is a major, major component of how the distro does what it does,
> changes to rpm should be ultraconservative which don't seem to be the
> case with all the new bits being added to the 4.4.X releases as it goes
> along (YAML for no apparent reason, for example). If we change rpm we
> have to check a bunch of components b/c of how deeply rpm is rooted into
> things.

+1 on each.  Thanks for porting this out from the board list, Seth.

-- 
Paul W. Frields, RHCE                          http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
     Fedora Project Board: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board
 Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/attachments/20060709/6e09ed2b/attachment.bin