In regard to: Re: No Neon patch..., Michael Jennings said (at 9:19pm on Jun...:

> On Friday, 29 June 2007, at 14:28:46 (-0500),
> Tim Mooney wrote:
>
>> I was thinking mainly of the application vendors when I replied
>> earlier -- companies like EMC, Oracle, IBM, etc., that want to claim
>> that their application supports at least RHEL, SuSE, and possibly
>> other rpm-based distributions.  It's their packaging people (or
>> monkeys, as the case may be) that will focus on the minimal subset,
>> in the interest of making their packages install on the widest range
>> of rpm-based distributions.
>
> If that's the assumption we're operating under, should we even bother
> trying to allow ISV rpmdb entries?
>
> I'm more inclined to think in the opposite direction:  add important
> features that ISV's can't live without so that they will pressure
> distributions to update to and support those features.

I would prefer that over the scenario I'm afraid we're heading for too.
The question is, what shiny features will ISVs clamor for?

The concerns I've voiced could turn out to be completely unfounded, too.
It would be great if were the case.

Tim
-- 
Tim Mooney                                        Tim.Mooney@ndsu.edu
Information Technology Services                   (701) 231-1076 (Voice)
Room 242-J6, IACC Building                        (701) 231-8541 (Fax)
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164