RPM

[Christopher Aillon]

Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Monday, 23 October 2006 at 19:50, Callum Lerwick wrote:
>> On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 10:59 +1000, Norman Gaywood wrote:
>>> Another article and discussion of interest is "Who maintains RPM?",
>>> posted in August 2006.
>>>
>>> http://lwn.net/Articles/196523/
>> After reading that,
> 
> That article is biased and inflammatory. Can we please stop quoting it?
> 
>> and especially this[1], can we *PLEASE* put our foot
>> down, show some balls, take the lead, show some initiative, and fork the
>> "Fedora Package Manager"?
> 
> What about "working with upstream"? I thought that was one of the main Fedora
> goals.

I'm not sure where the confusion is.

- Red Hat was upstream (Red Hat Package Manager).
- Red Hat had a person working on it.
- The person became the assumed upstream because he was the guy working 
on it.
- The person's employment was severed.  If the reasons at all involved 
the maintenance of the package in question, it seems clear that if the 
person is upstream "working with upstream" is already a bad relationship.

The worst possible thing Fedora and Red Hat could do at this point is to 
engage in a relationship with an upstream developer with intent to 
sabotage such an integral package.  It is conceivable that this is the 
case based on the past.  Most people on this list are unable to 
determine this without access to the HR files and a better understanding 
of the situation, and those files probably won't be released.  But Greg 
and Michael seldom make unfounded claims, and if they claim we need to 
sever these ties, then I agree.  You don't dump your long time 
girlfriend and then expect there to be no hard feelings.