From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1O9nAh-0003E3-Ty for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 05 May 2010 22:34:28 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2D2E5E0838; Wed, 5 May 2010 22:34:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-fx0-f53.google.com (mail-fx0-f53.google.com [209.85.161.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9392FE0839 for ; Wed, 5 May 2010 22:34:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm1 with SMTP id 1so4353104fxm.40 for ; Wed, 05 May 2010 15:34:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:x-enigmail-version :content-type; bh=+HLD5CSH8/mKGsUELktFZysS0nmMlkVS42qjyl3gmeE=; b=QronNvx8UTpc8g+baI2ELg1CzZ3SyJyPjsIFtpBgp1LDNq3hOJBNBHK+rFlUpeeGbt lJbm9vOv/NxNBYgMA1JNkK9tlbcPy1OWa98wlXOAms+F8Y9cMSTL54sgffvjAyUXaqDB ZgcsQhj6oxTjwhkXky0oIVy+nuaWOysmbOwj4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:x-enigmail-version:content-type; b=XjJng/36eL1KCHEysVQNv5CLcMmvzWq2PdgGxg/VBypqSCsNbmW7qLEsqBS2dcjSwv lma0ocsYLN2UBSiFFH8zEUOGocIXrvw0mWEyT4t2S4XbWQ+JkDXpWbH/hHv15rCTy5Zg u/mBUW69DaVU7sktrJ3YSvUef4NYVrpcMDZy0= Received: by 10.223.143.9 with SMTP id s9mr5913359fau.52.1273098844479; Wed, 05 May 2010 15:34:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (249.5.broadband7.iol.cz [88.102.5.249]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 22sm726166fkq.47.2010.05.05.15.34.03 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 05 May 2010 15:34:03 -0700 (PDT) Sender: =?UTF-8?Q?Stanislav_Ochotnick=C3=BD?= Message-ID: <4BE1F284.4050803@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 00:34:44 +0200 From: Stanislav Ochotnicky Organization: Gentoo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100411 Lightning/1.0b2pre Shredder/3.0.4 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-dev] app-arch/rpm - a few questions X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig56334443F50C9F01FB242F95" X-Archives-Salt: 4cf8ce44-520c-4797-985a-f64578cacdf4 X-Archives-Hash: d8ab4615aae2e22160242c4e4cc07f59 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig56334443F50C9F01FB242F95 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I recently took rpm under my wing and I plan to update it a bit. There is already 4.8.0 masked in tree for testing (go ahead and try if you want, just backup your package db beforehand). I have a few questions for the list though...I would assume a big portion of Gentoo users don't come into contact with rpms that often. >=3Drpm-4.7 introduced certain changes to rpm files created by them which= makes some features unavailable when using older rpm versions. Would you consider this a problem (in other words: are you creating rpms with gentoo and use them someplace else)? 4.7 was released over a year ago so I would say most major rpm-based distributions already support those new features. A bigger question I have for the list is this: We currently have two completely different versions of rpm as one package. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPM_Package_Manager#Forks for overview of situation. app-arch/rpm-5* is horse of a different color from 4.* branch yet it still resides in app-arch/rpm. rpm-5* is hard masked since 2008, and it is not supported by any big players (Novell, Red Hat and Mandriva all use rpm-4.* fork). Question is...what to do with it. I could move it to app-arch/rpm5 (a bit weird to have package with only one ebuild that is hard-masked I guess) or simply remove. There is no bug filed against rpm-5, probably because it has been hard-masked all the time. Moreover if I am not mistaken database is not compatible between 4 and 5 so if someone accidentally upgrades...he/she is screwed. That was original reason for masking rpm-5 as far as I know. Summary: 1. Do you create rpms with Gentoo and use them someplace else? 2. What's your take on (re)moving app-arch/rpm-5? Also any other ideas on use of rpm on Gentoo would be appreciated. For example rpm.eclass is still bit unknown for me for now...I still have to see what's it about :-) Disclaimer: By day I work @ Red Hat, which makes decision about removing rpm-5 all the more complicated for me. --=20 Stanislav Ochotnicky PGP: 0x71A1677C --------------enig56334443F50C9F01FB242F95 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkvh8ooACgkQB9Uc/HGhZ3wFqACgpBxAAYACPpBkyjo+0ruxYO4k PFYAoKTaH5BPTngxmgxuhHm0qD1mutWK =Pid/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig56334443F50C9F01FB242F95--