redhat abe

[Jeff Johnson]

Thomas Vander Stichele wrote:

>Hi Arjan,
>
>  
>
>>>I just read about Red Hat ABE (Application Build Environment) which
>>>seems to be something similar to mach.
>>>      
>>>
>>the goals are very similar to mach, but mach uses apt which made it not
>>suitable as basis for the ABE
>>    
>>
>
>I have to bite here :)
>
>Given that
>a) mach has been used by some people over some time;
>
True for beehive as well.

>b) people working on mach have repeatedly tried to discuss with Red Hat
>and said "hey, we'd like to work with you on a build system to be used
>by all", as part of the "community" project that is Fedora; but no
>attempts were made from Red Hat to unify forces;
>

Well Red Hat ain't exactly got a mouth, or more specifically, one mouth.

I spent several months attempting to unify forces, and I work at Red Hat.
That is not "No attempt."

And I'm sure there are other, less feeble, attempts from Red Hat to 
unify than my efforts.

>c) nothing more was ever offered as negative feedback on mach than "it
>uses apt" (a fact that is easily changeable, obviously);
>

Well clearly, having mach rely on a package that is not included in any Red
Hat product, presents certain logistical difficulties. That should be 
obvious.

>d) you could easily have asked "hey, can't mach be made to not use apt,
>but do (insert random feature you would like)"
>  
>

I have said repeatedly that mach needs to lose the subliminal messages 
in the progress
bars, even if they're s-o-o-o-o cute! ;-)

>why did the "NIH" syndrome that Red Hat sometimes displays wins out over
>the desire to involve the community in the "community" project ?
>  
>

Assimilating a 3rd -- nay 4th or 5th if I count [rs]-c-p and rpm -- 
dependency solver
into the distro (i.e. apt) in order to accdomodate a poor design choice 
in mach makes
little sense to me.

And, FWIW, I have suggested repeatedly that apt be added to FC 
internally to Red Hat
in spite of the cost of attempting to maintain Yet Another Depsolver. 
The previous line
basically summarizes the majority of the feedback that I have heard:

   FC needs fewer depsolvers that work more reliably.

>I am behind Red Hat and Fedora 100% of the way, against the flames of
>friends who really do not understand why this Fedora thing is all talk
>and no action.  Things like this are just one of the many things
>symptomatic of the fact that Red Hat seems to want us to believe there's
>a community to be involved in, when in fact there is no such thing.
>

Heh, a casual reading seems to indicate that there is no community for 
Red Hat
to be involved with, perhaps not what you intended. ;-)

>I realize that you probably don't care, and that you have a job to do,
>and it's already hard enough as it is, and sometimes it's just easier to
>Do Your Own Thing to Get The Job Done.  And this is very much not a
>personal flame at you, just a flame at Red Hat in general.
>  
>

So flame away. Do you have any idea what it is like being bathed in 
flame for months
and years, simply because you happen to work for Red Hat?

>To put it ghetto-style - when is RH going to stop talking the talk and
>start walking the walk ?
>  
>

When your momma takes off her combat boots, and not before. ;-)

73 de Jeff