[fab] JBJ considered harmfull
seth vidal
skvidal at linux.duke.edu
Wed Aug 9 12:22:24 UTC 2006
On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 07:17 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> I don't ever recall Paul saying that (committing to
> supporting/maintaining a forked rpm long-term). Maybe I just missed
> that (or is senility sinking in already?)...
After the meeting in the fbl list we discussed me talking to Paul about
it. I did.
> For the record, I'll be honest, I'm against forking (away from
> rpm.org/jbj).
>
> Sure, jbj is abrasive and in-your-face at times, but I see most of that
> simply as his being protective of his rpm baby, much like you (Seth) are
> of yum (except you're kinder/gentler about it! (: ). Now, I'm not privy
> to the details of his "leaving" redhat, or the depth of his animosity
> surrounding that, but based on my own observations so far, I'm not (yet,
> at least) convinced that his attitude necessarily precludes working
> *with* him.
>
> And, from a *technical* point of view, I see no reason to fork either.
> The only technical arguments I've heard so far are things like "feature
> X is crazy!", but from my reading of:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/rpm-devel
> Most/all of those "feature X's" are optional and/or can be disabled if
> need-be.
Have you seen the rpmtag_arch removals from last week and the rpmrc
movement?
We're not going to be able to merge those soon from what I can see.
it's the foundation for everything we do.
we have already forked it. We just need to own up to our fork.
-sv
More information about the fedora-advisory-board
mailing list