[fab] dealing with rpm.

[Rex Dieter]

seth vidal wrote:

> Here's something that's come out of all this:
> 
> 1. jeff has said he is not upstream:
> https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/rpm-devel/2006-August/001374.html
...
> 2. he says a fork of rpm for designs of other folks working on it has
> his blessing 
> https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/rpm-devel/2006-August/001375.html

To be fair to jbj, I think you're twisting his words a bit in your 
summaries of his statements.

> Here's what I'm thinking right now pending the discussion on monday at
> rh:
...
> anyway - that is most of what I'm going on right now.
> what do y'all think?

Frankly, I'm uncomfortable with this, and my opinion from
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2006-August/msg00115.html
is generally still the same, ie, I see no *technical* justification for 
a fork.  I consider any rpm development without jbj to be mistake, ie, I 
value highly the bugfixes and features jbj has fixed/added since Fedora 
stopped updating rpm (from jbj-upstream).  I'm concerned that these will 
get lost if a fork happens.

Now, there does appear be a some momentum for new development/fork 
(whatever you want to call it), so if that is going to happen, I think 
it prudent to kindly request jbj participate (ie, be involved) in this 
new-rpm-order.  I think the gesture is owed to him, even if it doesn't 
have much chance to garner a positive response.

-- Rex