required and recommended

[Jeremy Katz]

On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 20:03 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 10:06 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> > On 1/25/06, Andreas Bierfert <andreas.bierfert at lowlatency.de> wrote:
> > > I would love to see this in fc5 :) and of course fc and fe packages using it ^^
> > 
> > Unless the tools that live on top of librpm understand how to make use
> > and to negotiate the new tags, having them be used in fc or fe
> > packages isn't going to be particularly useful unless you do all your
> > package administration via rpm on the cmdline.  In fact it might lead
> > to unexpected and undesired behavior. I don't think these new tags
> > should be allowed as part of FC or FE policy until its clear that the
> > new tags behave as expected when the default in-core tools have to
> > deal with them. And any understanding as to potentially problems is
> > going to require some local system testing from people who are
> > interested in using these tags in their packaging. I wouldn't hold
> > your breath waiting for these new features to be acceptible packaging
> > policy. I fully expect there is going to have to be work done to
> > support these new tags by tools other than rpm cli.  Until we know
> > where we stand with the tools that intereact with librpm, i say no
> > dice.
> 
> Getting rpm 4.4.4 into FC5 would be the first step though. If it doesn't
> go into FC5 it'll probably be yet another half a year before people will
> even start looking into those things. I certainly would like to see rpm
> >= 4.4.4 in FC5.

It's way too late to switch FC5 to a newer version of RPM. 

Jeremy