[Bug 226377] Merge Review: rpm

[Axel Thimm]

On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 10:27:34AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 04:16 -0400, bugzilla at redhat.com wrote:
> > Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
> > comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
> > 
> > Summary: Merge Review: rpm
> > 
> > 
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226377
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ------- Additional Comments From redhat at linuxnetz.de  2007-08-24 04:16 EST -------
> > Panu, I already did this job more or less - but for rpm5. It is less pain and 
> > seems to work well. If next week matches, my rpm5 package should reach review 
> > and then you can copy over bits from there to get the rpm.spec file friendly to 
> > rpmlint (of course, there will be some warnings and errors further on, because 
> > rpm is a special package).
> 
> IMO, we will not be able to avoid to have a management decision on how
> to proceed with JBJ's rpm5.
> 
> AFAICT, Fedora leadership clearly has set up a clear decision not to
> switch to rpm5 but to continue with rpm.org.
> 
> => IMO, there should not be any room for rpm5, may-be except as an
> optional add-on package.

I think this decision has already been made when Jeff had announced
rpm as unmaintained and the ball was picked up by what is now under
rpm.org.

I think rpm5 in Fedora is dangerous. At the very least it reverses
the ordering of letters and digits and thus breaks a ton of packaging
techniques. Any *-1.fc8 -> *.1.1.fc8 upgrade path is busted for
example.

An rpm5 package in Fedora would have to bend the paths as to leave
/var/lib/rpm alone (perhaps rpm5 already uses /var/lib/rpm5, I don't
know).
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/attachments/20070824/703651a4/attachment.bin