On Jan 31, 2008, at 7:56 PM, devzero2000 wrote:

>
>
>
>
> But..... you can have reason but i think if there isn't so much  
> feature in
> RPM5 for a developer and repo mantainer perhaps there isn't so much  
> interest
> in using it. Doesn't it ?


package managers are not chosen on "features" many years now.

interest is in the eye of the beholder. E.g. I don't envy rpm.org
having to continue to support rpmrc files. It took me 6 years t(and 4  
attempts)
to lose the silliness. I can similar things about RPMv3 (aka LSB)  
package format.

But rpm5.0.0 (unlike rpm.org) has erasure ordering, what's in
rpm-4.4.2.3.4.5.6 is a flimsy crock-of-shit (I implemented so I
get to call my own shite shite).

ANd rpm-5.0.0 has compound dependencies where both name _AND_
arch can be specified in a dependency. Requested by Fedora almost
a year ago, and rpm.org has yet to address the issue.

There's any number of other "features", including deployed --rollback,
upgrade forward/backward links to keep track of all package upgrades,
selectable file digests (not just md5), runtime probe dependencies,
and more.

but package managers are rocks and moss, "features" simply do
not matter.

73 de Jeff