> FWIW, it has always been my style to base things heavily on public
> writings. It's how our community works, and I don't want to pretend
> that I have some special sources of information that nobody else has.
And that might be fine for when everyone is working in "the same room", but not so much when a small number of people are off by themselves. While a bunch of the relevant people might be aware of the rpm5 and Mandrivia MLs, and the "discussions" ... it's not like it'd be a good idea to post to any of those lists.
Also anybody can speak to the FPL/etc, and/or the portion of Fedora/RHEL/SuSE developers who would have some insight.
> Often the only real way to judge success is when all sides seem to be
> thoroughly upset with me; by that standard, this article has certainly
For that to be a good test "all sides" have to be wrong. For something like "What is the maintainership status of a core component for a couple of major distributions" that seems ... unlikely.
> I don't think I ever said Fedora was likely to do a switch - I know the
> history there (or at least part of it).
You didn't say it explicitly, but the implication was certainly that rpm5 was a viable replacement fork (like, say, EGCS vs. GCC).
If you reported someone had forked dpkg, then the important point isn't if "Linux Mint" is using it but if Debian/Ubuntu are ... IMO.