[fab] The Future of RPM - now's the time to decide

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 10/25/06, Patrick W. Barnes <nman64 at n-man.com> wrote:
> There's been a lot of discussion broken up in many places over the future of
> RPM, all surrounding BZ 174307.  I'm not extremely familiar with all of the
> background, but there's one thing that is clear:  upstream is a problem and
> we need to decide how to deal with it.
>
> I've seen a lot of talk about forking RPM, and I personally feel that's the
> right way to go, but I haven't seen any final word on this.  Now, the future
> of something as important as RPM can't be wholly determined by the community
> without regard to Red Hat, but I think we can come up with a resolution here
> and the right people can push that resolution through Red Hat.
>
> I'm wanting to see two things:
>
>  1. A definite "yes, we'll fork" or "no, we'll deal with jbj".
>  2. In the case of a fork, someone needs an action item to lead the way.
>
> Now is NOT the time to discuss dramatic changes in the package manager or
> potential concerns over things like the tool's name, we just need to figure
> out what path we're going to take for the long-term maintenance of RPM.
>
> With FC6 out the door, and the PR pressure starting to build, we need to make
> a decision ASAP so that we can move forward for FC7.  Let's rip off the
> band-aid and let the healing begin.
>

I think it will be more like you will need stiches, sutures, and some
major healing time. If Red Hat is going to fork.. it will need to make
sure that the person holding the bag gets a strong support model, and
a good idea of what is required and when.

-- 
Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"