| 1 |
I recently took rpm under my wing and I plan to update it a bit. There |
| 2 |
is already 4.8.0 masked in tree for testing (go ahead and try if you |
| 3 |
want, just backup your package db beforehand). I have a few questions |
| 4 |
for the list though...I would assume a big portion of Gentoo users don't |
| 5 |
come into contact with rpms that often. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
>=rpm-4.7 introduced certain changes to rpm files created by them which |
| 8 |
makes some features unavailable when using older rpm versions. Would you |
| 9 |
consider this a problem (in other words: are you creating rpms with |
| 10 |
gentoo and use them someplace else)? 4.7 was released over a year ago so |
| 11 |
I would say most major rpm-based distributions already support those new |
| 12 |
features. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
A bigger question I have for the list is this: We currently have two |
| 15 |
completely different versions of rpm as one package. See |
| 16 |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPM_Package_Manager#Forks for overview of |
| 17 |
situation. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
app-arch/rpm-5* is horse of a different color from 4.* branch yet it |
| 20 |
still resides in app-arch/rpm. rpm-5* is hard masked since 2008, and it |
| 21 |
is not supported by any big players (Novell, Red Hat and Mandriva all |
| 22 |
use rpm-4.* fork). Question is...what to do with it. I could move it to |
| 23 |
app-arch/rpm5 (a bit weird to have package with only one ebuild that is |
| 24 |
hard-masked I guess) or simply remove. There is no bug filed against |
| 25 |
rpm-5, probably because it has been hard-masked all the time. Moreover |
| 26 |
if I am not mistaken database is not compatible between 4 and 5 so if |
| 27 |
someone accidentally upgrades...he/she is screwed. That was original |
| 28 |
reason for masking rpm-5 as far as I know. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Summary: |
| 31 |
1. Do you create rpms with Gentoo and use them someplace else? |
| 32 |
2. What's your take on (re)moving app-arch/rpm-5? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Also any other ideas on use of rpm on Gentoo would be appreciated. For |
| 35 |
example rpm.eclass is still bit unknown for me for now...I still have to |
| 36 |
see what's it about :-) |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Disclaimer: By day I work @ Red Hat, which makes decision about removing |
| 39 |
rpm-5 all the more complicated for me. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
Stanislav Ochotnicky |
| 43 |
PGP: 0x71A1677C |
Archives