[Mageia-dev] RPM5 AND MAGEIA

Wed Mar 9 00:53:04 CET 2011

Le mardi 08 mars 2011 à 23:59 +0100, Raphaël Jadot a écrit :
+
+> The mails are hard to read, and long, and very technicals,  but what
+> catched my eyes is some things like
+> "level of compatibility" between Mageia & rpm5 is far greater than any
+> other (with
+> other rpm5 based distros being more compatible with Mageia than Mageia
+> is with non-rpm5 based distros as well"
+> So it doesn't mean we have to move to rpm5 for being compatible with
+> rpm5, so where is the problem ?
+
+So if there is no problem, why do people keep talking of this ?
+
+> So if Per Oyvind offers help, unless there are hidden things i do not
+> understand, and if he can improve rpm.org or compatibility stuff or
+> whatever, why nobody says "ok, why not, tell us, maybe you could help,
+> maybe not" Did not find it (at least in this ML)
+
+I personally answered at least on others mls :
+( http://lists.mandriva.com/maintainers/2011-02/msg00080.php )
+
+I also answered to peroyvind on irc, but I will not disclose logs of
+private discussion.
+
+I said it to unity guy who asked on #mageia-dev ( maybe he didn't pay
+attention, or maybe he was not looking at the screen at this moment ).
+
+It was also explained during one of the first meeting for packagers who
+asked : 
+http://meetbot.mageia.org/mageia-dev/2011/mageia-dev.2011-01-12-20.01.log.html#l-258
+
+So, for the n+1 time, we have no specific stuff to propose to
+collaborate nor ressources to allocate for the moment, because we are
+busy trying to have a infrastructure and a governance structure ready,
+and this take time. We even did a conference on FOSDEM to explain the
+whole process. 
+
+If people want to do it fine, but without a clear proposal and people
+working on doing stuff, nothing will happen. And we clearly told we have
+more urgent things, like doing a first release, organizing, etc.
+
+> Seems it's not the first time, in this mail
+> https://www.mageia.org/pipermail/mageia-dev/20110109/002024.html
+> he told  "(if interested, I could help assist you on writing something
+> equivalent for compatibility wrapping similar to what I did in the
+> past with rpm4compat.h & rpm46compat.h to make ie. URPM able to use
+> rpm 4.4 & 4.6 api with rpm5, let's say rpm5compat.h or something).
+> 
+> Whatever you end up doing, don't be afraid of asking or trying to
+> communicate on, the mutual benefits of collaboration are rather
+> obvious. <;o)
+> If not, sorry for imposing."
+> 
+> This mail had no answer, so what, is this guy a kind of antichrist of
+> rpm , talking with sugar words and trying to backstab you ?
+
+Using religious vocabulary and exaggeration is IMHO something you should
+avoid. It doesn't help.
+
+> And at least, If the question are asked over and over, why is there so
+> few things in archives about it ? 
+
+I suspect that you do not correctly connect the dots.
+
+We have made quite clear in the roadmap, in our various communications,
+in this ml, and elsewhere that no disruptive changes are planned for the
+first release. This mean no systemd by default, no python change to
+python 3, likely no gnome shell by default, no lvm by default, no
+rolling release, etc, etc. 
+
+And this also includes no disruptive changes in a area like the package
+manager if we can avoid it.
+
+> Sure every one knows mageia will not
+> hurry to go to rpm5 tomorrow, and so what ? If some are bored about
+> some related questions, why not opening a FAQ that explain it, or that
+> just point to the related archive/topic (which could be this one) ?
+
+That's not really a FAQ when there is at most 3 persons who asked for it
+( 2 being part of the upstream project ).
+
+-- 
+Michael Scherer
+
+