[Bug 226377] Merge Review: rpm

[Jesse Keating]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:27:34 +0200
Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at freenet.de> wrote:

> 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.

Honestly while it's good to think about this now, it may become a moot
point unless they can get rpm5 to be completely co-installable with
rpm(.org).  Our current packaging guidelines forbit any conflicts and
that means it's up to rpm5 set up all the different paths for their
package as to not conflict, override, usurp the rpm.org on the system.
If they can do that, /and/ it's still usable for whatever they want to
do with it, then we can make a political decision, if its even needed.

If it doesn't conflict with rpm.org, if it doesn't disrupt rpm.org's
actions on the system, if it doesn't take over calls from other tools
that use rpmlib, if it doesn't otherwise disrupt the normal operation
of a system wrt rpm(.org), is there really a problem in having the
package existing in Fedora?  Yes it sends something of a mixed message
wrt what rpm we support, but that can be answered with wiki pages, and
surely enforced in the comps file.

(Note that these are just my opinions, I do not speak as FESCo, nor do
I hold a position within the Fedora Board)

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/attachments/20070824/e0143d75/attachment.bin