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

[Rahul]

Michael Tiemann wrote:

> 
> Yes.
> 
> When Fedora was initially conceived, and there wasn't quiet the amount
> of forkage between Red Hat Linux, Enterprise Linux, Fedora, and upstream
> (relative to *now*), it was easy to approximate Fedora Core package
> versions as 'the latest versions that are reasonably *working* (not
> stable, as in unchanging, but working).  I toured the world explaining
> this distinction as "Fedora is the best of what works today.  Enterprise
> Linux is the best of what will work for the next seven years," and it
> was very well received.
> 
> Time has passed.  Fedora and Enterprise Linux have each built their own
> track records.  Fedora has proved to be an extremely valuable mechanism
> for evaluating and rapidly maturing upstream technologies into stuff we
> can use (or know not to use) for Enterprise Linux.  Look at how fastly
> and loosely (and successfully) we played with GNOME versions to get the
> latest and greatest into FC(n).  I am convinced that without Fedora, the
> integration of SE Linux into Enterprise Linux, thereby making it the
> most mainstream high-grade security platform to date, would have been
> impossible.  The Fedora project is a winner and I am very proud what
> what we all have done together.
> 
> But now the approximation is not so easy.  It seems that a third
> criterion has crept into the mix, one which now places Fedora in a much
> more distinctive place between upstream and stable. 

I would say that the definition of "working" still applies. Simply 
shipping the latest RPM package wouldnt really work. It would depend on 
packaging policies and changes in yum and Anaconda. It might have been 
completed a bit earlier but thats a matter of priorities.


  A place that will
> become even more distinctive with time.  And while I am glad to know
> that the board/cabal is earnestly holding discussions that weigh on this
> criterion with respect to upstream (or not) rpm, I'm getting the sense
> of deja vu that we will once again exclude the community--in this case
> upstream developers--in a way that's going to give us another painful
> rift to heal.  And if you tell me "we're already thinking about that",
> I'll say "great.  I hope to see that thinking published soon."  And if I
> don't see it soon, I'll worry even more.
> 
> M

The thinking is already published in a earlier mail send by Seth Vidal. 
I dont think there is much more to add in this matter.

Rahul