RPM roadmapping

[Panu Matilainen]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, Robert Scheck wrote:
>
> when reading your ideas or how ever you're calling it, it looks as you
> would like to come up with the same roadmap rpm5.org already has - but just
> nearly two month later. And when reading rpm5-devel from the last two
> month, you're proposing more or less the same ideas, the rpm5 team and
> developers already talked about; read yourself:
>
>  - http://rpm5.org/roadmap/
>  - http://rpm5.org/community/rpm-devel/

Yes, I'm reasonably well aware of what rpm5.org is doing. I dunno if 
you've noticed but some (not all by any means) of the things happening 
there have actually been triggered by rpm.org activities. Incidentally the 
initial rpm.org roadmap was published two and a half months ago...

> But I've also one wish regarding the features of rpm.org: Let rpmrc die as
> soon as possible, please. As you're also at the rpm5-devel mailing list,
> you should know what I'm talking about here, don't you?

I haven't been following that particular discussion in any detail.

> My personal conclusion is, that as of the moment, many expected features
> are already part of rpm5.org for a longer time. Oh, I forgot, some Red Hat
> people don't like some rpm5.org team members</sarcasm>. But this are just
> my 2 cents regarding this topic as rpm5.org member and Fedora user... ;-)

It's not exactly a big secret that rpm5.org has various fixes and 
additions that make sense for rpm.org as well. There's a large amount of 
shared code at the moment, and quite obviously a fair bit of common 
interest areas as well between the two trees. So yes, code exchange does 
happen between the trees, both ways, that's obvious to anybody who 
looks at the changelogs. Still, it doesn't mean they share a common 
roadmap, they actually differ quite a bit if you think about it.

 	- Panu -