[Bug 226377] Merge Review: rpm

[Axel Thimm]

On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 11:38:59AM +0200, Robert Scheck wrote:
> IMAO this is nothing that has to be discussed at advisory board. Or are we
> going to discuss glibc vs. uclibc or similar things there, too? Thanks.

If the board had decided in the past to chose using only glibc because
the developer of uclibc has become actively non-cooperative, then we
sure would do so. The rpm5 political issue has been too often an issue
of the board in the past, and we should try to keep it there, in the
past.

There is no benefit in Fedora carrying an alternative package to a
critical base system component with an anti-upstream. At the very
least we derail the efforts of the in-house rpm development.

That's all a political discussion. The technical divergencies follow
from the non-cooperation policy.

FWIW some of the decisions that made rpm5 incompatible to Fedora/RHEL
were made known to rpm5's developer beforehand and he didn't care
about it. In fact if you just try to conatct the devloper and say that
this and this is an issue in Fedora and whether he could make that a
compile time switch you will probably get very nasty vocal attributes
in return.
-- 
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/20070824/1663c39a/attachment.bin