On Aug 27, 2008, at 1:36 PM, Alexey Tourbin wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 12:55:06PM -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>>> This apparently means that rpm5 is not that widely used.
>>> Perhaps you should call for yet more major distributions.
>>
>> I'd agree that rpm5 is not widely used on "legacy" distributions.
>
> Face it, people use what they give them, and they give them something
> about rpm-4.4.2+.
>

Yep.

>> I'm more interested in best possible engineering than with
>> widest possible usage atm for rpm-5.x. Better engineering
>> will eventually be adopted is my guess, and I most definitely
>> do not want the burden of support for rpm everywhere, I'm
>> just one guy who wants his life back.
>
> (aside) You seem to use colloquial English which is not always easy
> to grasp.  What "one guy who wants his life back" is supposed to mean
> with respect to rpm5.org?
>

Sorry, my English is very strange, yes.

What I mean is that I'm on #rpm doing irc support for rpm
for many years.

These days most of the support is usually wrto "something
about rpm-4.4.2+".

My answer is not as simple as "Don't do that." because usually telling
whomever the correct answer wastes less of my time than trying to  
explain
why asking me questions, or making suggestions, for "something about
rpm-4.4.2+" is pointless.

rpm-4.4.2 was released by me like 3+ years ago, after leaving RedHat.

> Anyway, perhaps you should try to persuade SuSE guys that rpm5 is
> beneficial for them.  That could be a big win.

All the SuSE guys were invited @rpm5.org last October. None bothered to
even acknowledge the invitation. They are certainly still welcome  
@rpm5.org.

But its not hard to understand why no ACK, just look at zypp code or  
the OpenSUSE
web pages, where RPM is not even listed as a "package manager".

Its all about vendor "branding", not the "engineering" these days.  
True for more than RPM.

73 de Jeff