| 1 |
В Чтв, 06/05/2010 в 00:34 +0200, Stanislav Ochotnicky пишет: |
| 2 |
> Moreover if I am not mistaken database is not compatible between 4 and |
| 3 |
> 5 so if someone accidentally upgrades...he/she is screwed. That was |
| 4 |
> original reason for masking rpm-5 as far as I know. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
It was hardmasked because some packages fail to build with rpm-5. And |
| 7 |
although currently patches exist I'm not sure if anybody tested/applied |
| 8 |
them yet. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> Summary: |
| 11 |
> 2. What's your take on (re)moving app-arch/rpm-5? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
It could be SLOTed. But since nobody maintains it it's better to drop it |
| 14 |
from the tree with a clear message in ChangeLog why it was dropped. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
BTW, thanks for taking care of rpm. Currently I don't use it but I |
| 17 |
needed it some years ago and it was very pleasant to have it in the |
| 18 |
tree. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Peter. |
Archives