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

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Posted May 7, 2011 0:51 UTC (Sat) by Ansus (guest, #74724)
In reply to: Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition) by gvy
Parent article: Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

> rpm5 also seems like an attempt at macro set unification, which isn't likely with RH controlled branch FWIW.

I am a maintainer and packager in openSUSE and I would say that the macro set in other modern distributions (Fedora, Mandriva) is rather compatible with ours. The only macros with which we have problems are icon update ones and of course with the names of the devel packages.

> But rpm5 also seems like an attempt at macro set unification, which isn't likely with RH controlled branch FWIW.

RPM5 is a way to break package compatibility between distributions first of all.

Anyway, I am sure that any migration to RPM5 cannot be justified with such behavior of the upstream. I read the Jeff's posts in the mailing list, his accusations of everybody around of being mentally ill etc and I would say that anybody who still wants to migrate to RPM5 should blame themselves for their stupidity.


(Log in to post comments)

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Posted May 7, 2011 3:23 UTC (Sat) by proyvind (guest, #74683) [Link]

Yeah, you might be a packager, but I bet you're not a rpm developer, now are you..?

The macros and compatibility between suse, fedora and mandriva as currently is and has historically been isn't worth shit.

The move to rpm5 is rather to standardize packaging around upstream, and not by trying to solve it with awkward macros to get half-assed adopted somewhere here and there, but never remotely sufficient to be of much relevance.
And just by stating that you're a package maintainer in opensuse doesn't really give you that much credibility to have insight on matters beyond suse packaging, much less rpm internals itself, and by claiming that macro sets in other modern distributions is rather compatible with yours, you're just revealing how way off you really are..
If you think more consistent macros is the solutions to everything, good for you, but what we want to achieve, and what I'm working on related to rpm5 is actually on implementing proper functionality within rpm itself, to be automized, externalized from spec files, and reduce the huge crap pile of macros and feeble attempts of achieving compatibility with %if foo blablbla %endif.
JPackage is a brilliant example of how miserably failures such attempts usually are, we'd rather work on making such project superfluous...
But go on, your macros will probably lead you to the magic leprecon, taking you to the gold at the end of the rainbow..
But in the real world, there's a need for cleaner, simpler, and well-designed means to achieve any sensible form of compatibility..

If you read our mailing lists, then you should also notice that Jeff's responses are well warranted, even though a bit hot-headed and misinterpreting people occationally, something which you cannot blame him for considering people's behaviour and attitude..

Jeff has been the person over the last month who's actually been the most active and helpful on cooker, and also given us a huge boost in discussing new ideas and related r&d, while being frequently trashed by the same group of people with their own agenda.
You can find these same people having been especially active dating back to september since the mageia announcement, trolling and generally generating tension on the list before Jeff turned up as well..

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Posted May 7, 2011 13:48 UTC (Sat) by Ansus (guest, #74724) [Link]

> reduce the huge crap pile of macros and feeble attempts of achieving compatibility with %if foo blablbla %endif.

I have ported hundreds of packages from other RPM distros and as I can say, the only places where you have to place %if...%endif most often are the BuildRequires tags due to different package names and the update-desktop-files machinery.

(offtopic) from .desktop accounting department

Posted May 9, 2011 12:42 UTC (Mon) by gvy (guest, #11981) [Link]

> [...] and the update-desktop-files machinery.
...which is best done by a posttrans trigger IMO&X.

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Posted May 7, 2011 13:50 UTC (Sat) by Ansus (guest, #74724) [Link]

> If you read our mailing lists, then you should also notice that Jeff's responses are well warranted

From what I saw he attacked completely uninvolved people for even friendly questions.

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)

Posted May 7, 2011 13:55 UTC (Sat) by Ansus (guest, #74724) [Link]

> The move to rpm5 is rather to standardize packaging

In fact it will only split package format among distributions removing any hope of reconciliation. Or do you hope that Fedora will switch to RPM5 also? Speaking for openSUSE, it values compatibility with Fedora and will not switch either.

What even worse is that RPM5 breaks not only spec files compatibility, but also makes binary formats incompatible.


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