[Rpm-ecosystem] RPM in ALT Linux (4.0.4 vs 4.13)

Igor Gnatenko ignatenko at redhat.com
Sun Sep 4 14:27:46 UTC 2016


On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Ivan Zakharyaschev <imz at altlinux.org> wrote:
> Hello!
Hi,
>
> On Sat, 3 Sep 2016, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
>> I saw you guys listed as the most recent ones to change the rpm
>> package in ALT Linux, and I was wondering if you guys had contemplated
>> upgrading from rpm 4.0.4 to rpm 4.13?
>
>
> glebfm@ and legion@ are busy now with this.
> https://lists.altlinux.org/pipermail/devel/2016-July/201603.html
>
> They could give most details about this process.
>
> The first thing to do on this way was to rebase many ALT's features[1] onto
> rpm(-install)-4.13. (Not yet features relevant for rpm-build.)
>
> [1] https://www.altlinux.org/Rpm-4.13
>
>> If so, why haven't you? What's holding you back from upgrading? I'd
>
>
> Apart from the first important step (rebasing ALT's rpm-install) which has
> been done and is ready for testing, there are things would hold us back from
> putting the new version into ALT Sisyphus:
>
> those packages which use librpm and/or access RPM's db will have to be
> adapted for the new version. (The first one, of course, is APT; then, there
> are some Perl bindings actively used by the tools for automatic package
> analysis, modification, submission; perhaps, some more, I don't know the
> list of things that hold this back well, but other involved people could
> tell you more.)
>
>> like to see the ALT Linux rpm maintainer team be involved in upstream
>> rpm.org development, as I'm sure your perspective would be valuable to
>> ensure a vibrant ecosystem around rpm.
>
>
> As said, there are a few ALT-specific nice, important and non-trivial
> features in RPM, which would always require maintaining a separate fork
> unless they are taken up by another RPM project, say, the rpm-4.13 project.
> Then the forces could be joined.
Why don't you propose patches to RPM upstream?
>
> One of these features is the support for set-versions (the <= relation,
> which is used to constrain Requires/Provides, which would behave not like a
> linear order, but like inclusion of sets), developed by at@ in the past.
> Now, he has announced that he is developing an enhanced varaint of this
> feature and could tell the details about the current developments to those
> who are interested.
> (https://lists.altlinux.org/pipermail/devel/2016-July/201614.html : support
> for prototypes/signatures similar to C++ mangling, but for C).
>
> at@ has pointed to his new work at https://github.com/svpv/rpmss --
> https://lists.altlinux.org/pipermail/devel/2016-August/201701.html . At the
> same time, at@ shared his belief that if there is some code in ALT's RPM
> which was once written and works correctly since then, there will be no need
> to put efforts into maintaining it; and so, he sees no justification in the
> complex work of rebasing onto rpm-4.13 because this would not save us any
> future efforts in maintaining ALT's RPM compared to the current situation.
> (Zero efforts if the current code of RPM works correctly.)
>
> glebfm@ -- Gleb Fontengauer-Malinovskiy
>
> legion@ -- Alexey Gladkov
>
> at@ -- Alexey Tourbin
>
> community-en at lists -- a mailing list for the community around ALT for
> discussions in English
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Ivan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rpm-ecosystem mailing list
> Rpm-ecosystem at lists.rpm.org
> http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-ecosystem



-- 
-Igor Gnatenko


More information about the Rpm-ecosystem mailing list