[fab] JBJ considered harmfull

[seth vidal]

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