User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Posted May 3, 2011 22:03 UTC (Tue) by proyvind (guest, #74683)
In reply to: Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition) by nevyn
Parent article: Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

>Might have been worth talking to some people here, rather than trying to work it out from ML postings ... esp. as generally people aren't going to just randomly post to a ML saying "Yeh, we looked at rpm5 but ... hahaha, no"
Yes, and obviously you're not the person that should've been talked to, while you come of as somewhat informed knowing what you're talking about to others, to those with actual insight and technical knowledge of RPM development can only smile at your naive sense of self-satisfaction.
>Trying to reply to just the most obvious "OMG, WTF" parts of this article:
>> Only a handful of committers show up in the repository; almost all of
>> them work for Red Hat
>You could say the same thing about glibc, or coreutils, or probably a bunch of other tools.
>> This [rpm5] version has focused on wider portability, has added features
>> like new compression formats, and a number of other things
>rpm.org has "xz" compression, since 4.7.0:
>http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.7.0#XZpayloadcompression
Hah, and where do you think that came from? Contributed by whom?
rpm.org actually introduced lzma payload compression in 4.6.0 using the format that changed, making use of it resulting in rpms useless by anyone.
The fixed support of rpm.org was contributed by myself after raising the issue and kicking and screaming on their list for like a half year before I got their attention.

>The two most interesting features I've seen recently are:
>http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.9.0#Collections
if interesting in a morbid sense, then yes
>http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.9.0#Automaticdependencygen...
Nope, we've had it for years, only more and better generators.
>...both of which are rpm.org only, AFAIK. I know that internal changes went >into 4.9.0 to speed up higher level packaging, and another one is planned >for 4.9.1 or 4.9.2. Both are rpm.org only.
As if.. Get a clue, ie. try comparing ruby packaging with rpm5/mandriva with fedora, the one comes out amazingly easy, slick and easy to maintain, while the other one comes out as pathetic by comparision, guess who..
>rpm5 does have rpmgrep though ... haha.
And..?
>> According to Jeff, killing an rpm4 operation in the middle can leave a
>> corrupted system behind; rpm5 is meant to eliminate that possibility
>Yeh, right. Think about that. %post can create random files in the FS and >then restart a running service ... how do you make that ACID?
>Sure, you can make it better ... but, whatever, better doesn't mean much >when you say "ACID" and what you get is that you can do one of "yum history >redo last" or "yum history undo last" (which is what rpm.org has).
Hah, yeah, you'd certainly have more faith and find yum's support for this more credible than what berkeley db has offered as functionality for years..
Get real...
>> The rpm5 fork arguably has more development activity and some
>> interesting new features
>People can argue anything on the internet, both projects are in git though >so you can do better than this.
>And again with the "some new features", maybe speak to the two/three rpm5 >proponents and find out what they are?
Yes, maybe you should rather than commenting and bashing on them here, while touting rpm.org features as new innovations, only lagging behind rpm5.org by several years..
>> And, importantly, Mandriva's RPM maintainer, Per √ėyvind Karlsen,
> wanted to go that way:
>Indeed, he's one of the 2 or 3 upstream rpm5 contributors.
There's actually more than 2-3, there's been steadily 4-5 most active developers for the last few years, with about 10 additional other sporadically active developers from various distributions..
>> It must be said that, through this process, Jeff has clearly put in a
>> massive amount of time supporting Mandriva. [...]
>> It is a rare development project that will put that much effort into
>> supporting its users - even high-profile users; Jeff has performed a
>> real service for Mandriva.
>I would expect this kind of commitment from anything so core to the distro. ... but maybe that's just me.
>> If rpm5 performs well in the final Mandriva 2011 release, it could
>> motivate questions from users of some of the other distributions on why
>> they are stuck with the "older" version [...] Either way, it seems that
>> this particular drama has not played itself out yet
>Again, I think you would have done much better with a "conclusion" here had
>you spoken to some people ... as I would say that the chance of Fedora >moving from rpm to "rpm5" is a bit less than that of it moving to dpkg. >Maybe the SuSE guys (or other Fedora people) have a different opinion, but >I would bet heavily against that too.
Yeah, go ask the SuSE guys about their involvement with rpm.org, the last communication they ever had with Fedora was the RPM Summit nearly two years ago, with nothing ever happening or communication taking place since, with zero direct involvement in upstream development..

Maybe you should consider asking people about matters yourself before making up clueless speculations from your proud ignorance.


(Log in to post comments)

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Posted May 3, 2011 22:23 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

Some notes:

"rpm.org actually introduced lzma payload compression in 4.6.0 using the format that changed, making use of it resulting in rpms useless by anyone.
The fixed support of rpm.org was contributed by myself after raising the issue and kicking and screaming on their list for like a half year before I got their attention."

rpm 4.8 support comes from

http://www.rpm.org/ticket/84

4.6 release had a prominent note

http://www.rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.6.0

"Experimental support for LZMA payloads has been added but this is unsupported as of 4.6.0 release, official support will be added in an update once a stable release of xz-utils (formerly lzma-utils) is available."

This is precisely the reason why Fedora didn't switchover to using lzma at that time and only switched over when the feature was not experimental anymore.

"Hah, yeah, you'd certainly have more faith and find yum's support for this more credible than what berkeley db has offered as functionality for years.."

This is a comparison between two different things are a different level. Doesn't seem that meaningful.

"Yeah, go ask the SuSE guys about their involvement with rpm.org, the last communication they ever had with Fedora was the RPM Summit nearly two years ago, with nothing ever happening or communication taking place since, with zero direct involvement in upstream development.."

They had communicated that they haven't allotted resources to upstream rpm development (this isn't a advantage for rpm5.org either) and haven't done much work but the amount of communication or patches are not zero.

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Posted May 3, 2011 22:31 UTC (Tue) by proyvind (guest, #74683) [Link]

http://www.rpm.org/ticket/84 has nothing to do with payload support, it's only support for extracting lzma/xz compressed archives.

Here's the patch that added both proper lzma_alone & xz payload support http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/2009-March/00237... that rpm.org ended up adopting (where they didn't orginally even plan on supporting the legacy lzma_alone format that others were and are still using).

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Posted May 3, 2011 22:44 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

Yes, Got the ticket number wrong. LZMA was legacy and author had informed folks that there is a newer and stable format in the pipeline and not to rely on LZMA. Hence the lack of support for it in rpm.org.

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Posted May 3, 2011 23:44 UTC (Tue) by proyvind (guest, #74683) [Link]

yes, but they now support both lzma_alone (legacy) and xz payload, as was contributed by me after all.. ;)


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds