On Jan 25, 2011, at 12:52 PM, Matthew Dawkins wrote:
>
> Unity != Mandriva
>
> The problem for Unity was that smart doesn't support it, nor does createrepo
> (i'm guessing)
>
There's nothing to support with smart and/or createrepo if Distepoch: is
finished.
Its all just smoke-and-mirrors to get a sounder basis for
identification/branding,
and to remove the need for %mkrel being configured during build's.
> A courtesy response is nice otherwise it feels like we are just getting
> ignored for the better, more well planned mother project. It seems testing
> and error report checking are a big todo there too!
>
Because Distepoch: is under
#ifdef RPM_VENDOR_MANDRIVA
I can't solve any issues directly. Just like filetriggers.
What I have tried to do is to force the issue into RPM (or back to vendor's),
and have asked for opinions on whether to include Distepoch: and file triggers
directly in RPM or rip it out.
I've heard exactly zero opinions on the vendor specific issues, all of which
have been mapped into launcpad.net/rpm blueprint's for discussion.
My personal opinion is still conflicted wrto both Distepoch: and file triggers.
But I cannot be blamed for "support" of vendor-peculier changes that I never
see or use.
> I can't think of another project that has used and deployed rpm5 more and our
> experiences are still chucked to the side like rubbish. TY
>
Rubbish? Chucked? If I'm at fault, please speak plainly and I will try to
accomodate.
My development focus is on rpm-5.4.x to get out of the way of Mandriva
adopting rpm-5.3.x.
And my previous devel focus was rpm-5.3.x to give UL a stable rpm-5.2.x.
But that also means that I'm several steps away from fixing anything, and
haven't
any basis for a "release" or "fixing" or much else.
73 de Jeff
> Cheers,
> Matt
______________________________________________________________________
RPM Package Manager http://rpm5.org
Developer Communication List [email protected]
