fedora-legacy/Warren agrees to enforce rpm upgrades?

[R P Herrold]

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, Axel Thimm wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 05:47:17PM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 01:27:20AM -1000, Warren Togami wrote:
> > > This however does not matter, since it has been agreed upon on
> > > fedora-legacy list that ALL distributions supported by Fedora Legacy
> > > will force an upgrade of rpm as a requirement for users to begin using
> > > those repositories.
> > 
> > When was this agreed upon?
> > [...] so unless we are the only left subscribers of fedora-legacy,
> > it is not yet an agreement of the whole list. ;)
> 
> Am I the only one that finds it questionable that assertions like
> these are simply being made?

Clearly, Axel, you are not alone.  I have kept relatively
silent on public posting on fedora-* lists, because of the
prior, and stil unchanged, unwillingness of projects sailing
under the 'fedora' name to work from an open, collaborative, 
and community model, other than when it is convenient.

My question from yesterday, as to pointers to reproduceable
test cases or RH Bugzilla entries on later rpm variants being
broken still remains unanswered.  If there are still truly
live problems as asserted, that fact would appear to be a
showstopper to requiring moving to a later version.

The recurrent re-appearance of the old 'there can be only one'
autocratic methods and ill-considered 'snap decisions' by some
are the antithesis of developing concensus; here specifically,
the technical _need_ for such a change of RPM in fedora-legacy
is not obvious and potentially (if Jesse's post is backed by
live examples) gains nothing but a new set of problems.  The 
turnaround on release naming models is another example within 
the last couple of days.

And of course in a 'fedora-legacy' context, an RPM change
requirement breaks the announced (and sensible) principle of
NOT introducing new functionality to an post-EOL maintenance
status line.

So, no, you are not alone; I see nothing beyond yet another
questionable assertion without process, principle, or 
concensus to back it up.

-- Russ Herrold