RPM 5.0 released [LWN.net]

RPM 5.0 released

Posted Jan 6, 2008 22:17 UTC (Sun) by clump (subscriber, #27801)
In reply to: RPM 5.0 released by tzafrir
Parent article: RPM 5.0 released

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.

(Log in to post comments)

RPM 5.0 released

Posted Jan 7, 2008 19:53 UTC (Mon) by spot (subscriber, #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!