| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
RPM 5.0 releasedRPM 5.0 releasedPosted Jan 5, 2008 20:48 UTC (Sat) by Tet (subscriber, #5433)Parent article: RPM 5.0 released Based on my previous interaction with Jeff Johnson, I think I'll be giving this a miss. I'll stick with distributions using a package manager written by someone I trust to get it right. And I'm afraid that's just not Jeff...
(Log in to post comments)
RPM 5.0 released Posted Jan 6, 2008 0:42 UTC (Sun) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] Interesting. If this was such an annoying problem, how come nobody stepped in to offer a patch? In fact comments by people more familiar with RPM tended to support Jeff's opinion. e.g: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=119185#c56 Jeff later fixed it in his forked version. But more importantly, in rpm5 he planned to switch to sqlite to get rid of berkeley-db related issues.
RPM 5.0 released Posted Jan 6, 2008 2:44 UTC (Sun) by gdt (subscriber, #6284) [Link] Bugzilla contains bugs from non-paying customers. Paying customers, such as myself, also reported this bug and Jeff's response was no more useful. Let's review: customers were paying top dollar for support (more per-item than to Sun or Cisco, and they support the hardware too), to a company which claimed that it was excellent at support, and this was a software project which the company created and presumably controlled. The onus for a fix was on Red Hat, and they failed to deliver in any timely fashion. And insulted their customers, and failed to take ownership of the issue, claiming nothing was wrong when there so obviously was. The RPM database inconsistency is the low point of Red Hat's support efforts. That experience made sure we developed and maintain a contingency plan for migration to another Linux vendor. Our experience was pretty much directly responsible for moving our e-mail system from Red Hat Linux to Windows. It was difficult to argue that Linux was more reliable and Linux vendors more responsive than Microsoft under circumstances where this obviously was not so.
RPM 5.0 released Posted Jan 6, 2008 9:00 UTC (Sun) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] That is about RedHat, not about JBJ. The amazing thing is this was such a painful issue and yet nobody came up with a patch. Including others that are more familiar with rpm. And how do the two current rpm versions fare with respect to database inconsistency?
RPM 5.0 released Posted Jan 6, 2008 9:43 UTC (Sun) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link] do i detect the smell of wet nappies ? ....
RPM 5.0 released Posted Jan 6, 2008 18:06 UTC (Sun) by einstein (subscriber, #2052) [Link] > Our experience was pretty much directly responsible for moving our e-mail system from Red Hat Linux to Windows. Ouch, microsoft? cutting off your nose to spite your face, eh? Note that there are other vendors. We moved from redhat to suse/novell and have been very happy with the results.
RPM 5.0 released Posted Jan 6, 2008 21:02 UTC (Sun) by michich (subscriber, #17902) [Link] Wasn't Jeff fired from Red Hat exactly because of his attitude to bug reporters?
RPM 5.0 released Posted Jan 6, 2008 11:36 UTC (Sun) by Los__D (subscriber, #15263) [Link] "Jeff later fixed it in his forked version. But more importantly, in rpm5 he planned to switch to sqlite to get rid of berkeley-db related issues." I really can't see how this bug is bdb related, it was related to the idiotic "best-effort" algorithm, combined with missing checks.
RPM 5.0 released Posted Jan 6, 2008 12:54 UTC (Sun) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link] Was it actaully fixed at all? I thought that rpm was changed to detect the filesystem being mounted read-only, but that would not fix other problems, such as where the filesystem was full, or one of the files being unpacked wanted to overwrite an immutable file, etc.
RPM 5.0 released Posted Jan 6, 2008 19:03 UTC (Sun) by MattPerry (guest, #46341) [Link] This is a good read for background info: http://lwn.net/Articles/196523/ Fedora is supposed to be taking charge of RPM: http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/15/040258
RPM 5.0 released Posted Jan 7, 2008 0:39 UTC (Mon) by skvidal (subscriber, #3094) [Link] Red Hat/fedora has taken over rpm.org. Panu Matilainen works on it as his primary job at red hat. There are some other contributors from suse and some fedora maintainers working on it, too. Ralf Corsepius provided a lot of work recently. It's hosted externally to red hat, though.
RPM 5.0 released Posted Jan 6, 2008 22:17 UTC (Sun) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link] Offering a patch would have been a good thing, but it also seems quite likely that a patch wouldn't have been applied. This matter was absolutely about Jeff Johnson as he never acknowledged there was an issue with an rpm database incorrectly representing what was installed.Forgive me, the comment you refer to agrees with the bug reporter: Concrerning the real problem at hand, it would be very nice that when rpm detects it has read only filesystems that are not in the %_netsharedpath macro, it should fail early before running any package through the package state machine, because it can (there are issues, but bottom line it is very very possible).My employer has tens of thousands of Redhat machines. Reading the bug report made me nervous, as I am responsible for a couple thousand of those machines. Johnson's behavior lets the mind wonder about other known, unfixed bugs. I congratulate "Tethys" for pressing the issue, and I'd hope anyone considering Johnson's RPM fork would read the full bug report.
RPM 5.0 released Posted Jan 7, 2008 19:53 UTC (Mon) by spot (guest, #15640) [Link] It is worth noting that Jeff doesn't work for Red Hat anymore, and that the version of rpm currently maintained in RHEL and Fedora is currently maintained by other people. While it is sometimes difficult to separate a company from its employees, try to remember that Red Hat does care about its customers, and works hard to resolve issues as timely as possible, even when those issues are internal.
RPM 5.0 released Posted Jan 8, 2008 19:13 UTC (Tue) by n3npq (subscriber, #40075) [Link]
Please permit me to confirm that, indeed, I am no longer employed by Red Hat, which
is the case for almost 3 years now.
Disclaimer: I do still have much invested in RHT, so please buy RHEL, as much as possible,
for your 10000+ machines now that you know that RHEL has no chance of being tainted
by any efforts of mine. Presumably spot@redhat.com should supply a similar disclaimer?
And for those who might be more interested in the rpm-5.0 release than, say, my place of
employment, or bugzilla #119185 or other hysterical 4+ year old baggage from when
I was <jbj@redhat.com> doing my job, I point you at the rationale for OpenPKG's choice
to provide vendor neutral infrastructure for the RPM project (I'll leave it to reader's to
decide their own meaning for "official") at
http://trainofthoughts.org/blog/2008/01/06/rpm5-vs-rpm/
Enjoy!
|
|
||||||||||||