RPM upgrade discussion

[Stephen Smoogen]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Axel Thimm wrote:

>If this mail is too long: You probably don't want to upgrade rpm for
>doing conservative, backported (security) bugfixes. Also my
>recommendation would be to use Progeny's services, or go straight to
>RHEL2/3, as I doubt that in two days legacy will be offering security
>rpms.
>
>On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 11:36:45PM -1000, Warren Togami wrote:
>> As we discussed earlier, Fedora Legacy will require an upgrade of rpm as 
>> a requirement for all users who choose to use our repository.  It is 
>> quite clear that we agree upon the rpm upgrade for RH8 and RH9 due to 
>> the major stability problems associated with those versions.
>
>Personally I would also upgrade rpm (and in ATrpms' legacy support I
>am doing so), but for the target group of legacy I would question this
>issue for the following reasons:
>
>o Red Hat never made rpm.org's errata official for any reasons they
>  may have. I suggest asking why. Probably they do not consider the
>  rpm upgrades stable enough. This is a strong signal not to go that
>  way.

If it is anything like when I worked there.. it is just plain orniriness
on the part of some developers. The reasons for some of the version
numbers of rpm and having Jeff backport a fix to some old version always
seemed to be somewhere between 'can we make Jeff have an aneurism this
week?' and 'this is how it is and I dont have to explain it to anyone'.


-- 
Stephen John Smoogen            smoogen at lanl.gov
Los Alamos National Labrador  CCN-5 Sched 5/40  PH: 5-8058
Ta-03 SM-261  MailStop P208 DP 17U  Los Alamos, NM 87545
-- So shines a good deed in a weary world. = Willy Wonka --