On Thursday, 26 July 2007, at 11:55:35 (-0400),
Jeff Johnson wrote:

>  Read rpmrc files or not?

Not.  It's a minimal compatibility gain for a big step backward.  We
should try to get as close as possible out-of-the-box in terms of
platform portability, but there are better ways of doing it.

>  Revert to RPMTAG_FILEMD5S?

Wasn't this already done for 4.5-0.4?

>  OTOH, some straight0-forward version renaming, like
>      /usr/include/rpm45
>     /usr/lib/librpm*-4.5*
>  would allow those "traditional" packages to be installed as well.
> 
>  What I'm not sure about is whether its worth the effort. I very much doubt
>  that any of rpm-devel, rpm-python, or rpm-build has any significant
>  usage case.
> 
>  Change paths to resurrect rpm-{devel,python,build}?

As rpm-4.5 will be our primary system version, not a parallel
installation, I'm not really too worried about this.

>  Or feel free to just check-in on rpm-4_5 branch, that works too.

That's my plan.

I'm also investigating a mismatch in the invocation of brp-compress as
/usr/lib/rpm/brp-compress (which is wrong as it's now in
/usr/lib/rpm/4.5) that needs to be addressed.

>  Any reservations on bundling db-4.6.18 into db-4.5?

I'm a bit hesitant since it's (in some respects) a one-way change, but
with ample testing it would be doable.  I'll just make sure I tar up
my rpmdb tree and don't --rebuilddb unless I really mean it. :-)

Michael

-- 
Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX)  http://www.kainx.org/  <mej@kainx.org>
Linux Server/Cluster Admin, LBL.gov       Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 "A woman broke up with me and sent me pictures of her and her new
  boyfriend in bed together.  Solution?  I sent them to her dad."
                                                   -- Christopher Case