Merge Review: rpm

[Axel Thimm]

On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 08:33:48PM -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007, Axel Thimm wrote:
> 
> >>Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewskiwrote:
> >>
> >>That depends on who contacts him. To me, he's been quite 
> >>approachable, but I imagine there are some @redhat folks he 
> >>won't talk to. IMHO your generalization is unfounded.
> 
> >I don't have a redhat.com address, contacted him in a 
> >friendly manner, pointed out that making rpm behave like 
> >dpkg would break Fedora and RHEL and was accused of 
> >premature ejaculation. Pointing out that this was a rude 
> >remark he started practicing his French and Greek on me.
> 
> Axel ---
> 
> You can persist in stating your side as though it is gospel 
> fact until you are blue in the face, but this is not what I 
> see from the archive I maintain of the interchange in 
> question.

Then you're not looking hard enough.

> Nor does it have relevance as to the technical merit of the 
> rpm5.org's ability to co-exist side by side with the Red Hat 
> maintained variant.

This is fab, which is about the political side. People have been
saying that rpm5 is dead already on technical merits in Fedora (or
need to be killed and kept in vaseline if it enters Fedora), so they
would like to avoid the political statement, which was given long time
ago anyway.

> In this thread, people are stating assumptions about technical 
> behaviours of rpm5 code which clearly reflect that they have 
> NOT tested, nor looked, nor done the install.

So I have looked and tested and know that rpm5 breaks Fedora upgrade
paths (and RHEL/CentOS) and was also later backed up by the Mandriva
maintainer of rpm who tested it on Mandriva where it also breaks their
assumptions. What else do you need? The fact that feeding this info to
rpm5 development only bounces back insults in various European
languages is not helpful either.

> It may be sensible to tone down the rush to torches and pitchforks
> to chase rpm5 away, to look first.

Please do look, and if you think changing the ordering to claim dpkg
compatibility was worth overthrowing - no breaking - all current rpm
disto conventions then that's an interpretation that I can't share. On
the pure technical level. Just try it in CentOS and we'll see who will
be blue in the face then.
-- 
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/20070825/5b94abba/attachment.bin