OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/19118/RPM_5_0_0_Released Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2013, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Fri, 24 May 2013 08:44:38 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif OSNews.com http://www.osnews.com Real deal? http://www.osnews.com/thread?294542 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294542 This is not the official rpm 5 right? If I remember correct it was somekind of fork? In other words will Redhat start using it?

Anyways RPM (with yum) is a rock-solid package system which never failed on us.Edited 2008-01-06 11:33 Sun, 06 Jan 2008 11:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (handy) Comments RE: Real deal? http://www.osnews.com/thread?294543 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294543 That is a good question: will Mandriva, Novell/OpenSUSE and Red Hat/Fedora use it? I'm very happy to use urpmi with rpm.

Another question, what is exactly the XAR format? Sun, 06 Jan 2008 11:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lezard) Comments RE: Real deal? http://www.osnews.com/thread?294546 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294546 > If I remember correct it was somekind of fork?

Jeff Johnson RPM : http://rpm5.org/ .

Red Hat/Fedora/SuSE/Mandriva RPM : http://www.rpm.org/ .

One of the reasons of Jeff Johnson fork :
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=119185 Sun, 06 Jan 2008 12:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (superman) Comments RE[2]: Real deal? http://www.osnews.com/thread?294547 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294547 RE: Another question, what is exactly the XAR format?

Why xar is interesting
http://code.google.com/p/xar/wiki/whyxar Sun, 06 Jan 2008 12:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (IceCubed) Comments RE[2]: Real deal? http://www.osnews.com/thread?294548 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294548 > will Mandriva, Novell/OpenSUSE and Red Hat/Fedora use it?

No. Sun, 06 Jan 2008 12:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (superman) Comments RE[3]: Real deal? http://www.osnews.com/thread?294552 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294552 Redhat could always change their minds. They have shown that they are not averse to doing so in the past (see inclusion of mono).

If it turns out to be much better, whilst maintaining compatibility with older rpms, then it is not inconceivable that they could adopt it. Sun, 06 Jan 2008 13:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mkone) Comments Honk! Honk! http://www.osnews.com/thread?294553 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294553 Popular Unix packaging format? Since when's Linux Unix? Sun, 06 Jan 2008 13:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Weeman) Comments RE: Honk! Honk! http://www.osnews.com/thread?294554 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294554 Since Linus forked it ;) Sun, 06 Jan 2008 13:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Googol) Comments RE[2]: Honk! Honk! http://www.osnews.com/thread?294555 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294555 > Since Linus forked it ;)

Linus did not fork it. See SCO. Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (superman) Comments RE[4]: Real deal? http://www.osnews.com/thread?294558 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294558 """
Redhat could always change their minds. They have shown that they are not averse to doing so in the past (see inclusion of mono).
"""

There is no mono in RedHat. Perhaps you are thinking of Fedora.

At any rate, it would be a mistake, and a step backwards, to allow such a critical component to be controlled by such an uncooperative developer. There was a reason that RedHat terminated Mr. Johnson. And there was a reason that Fedora spearheaded forking the project.

The XFree86->Xorg fork, painful as it was, has proven highly beneficial. In the same way, I believe that this fork will also result in long term benefits to the community. Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sbergman27) Comments RE[3]: Honk! Honk! http://www.osnews.com/thread?294559 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294559 You know it's nice that Novell won and all... but now that Novell owns SCOs intellectual property.... is there really anything left worth owning? Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Nossie) Comments RE[2]: Real deal? http://www.osnews.com/thread?294560 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294560 The full story:
http://lwn.net/Articles/196523/

- Gilboa Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (gilboa) Comments RE[2]: Real deal? http://www.osnews.com/thread?294569 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294569 wow, reading through that bug was kind of painful. It is unfortunate that people respond in a work environment with nastiness. There is no need for that. Johnson makes a reasonable argument that typing 'yum update' should not leave your system in a fragmented state if only part of a package is installed. I would think transactional accounting would be a requirement for updating a system. It makes me relieved that I got out of the software industry. It is annoying when good ideas get blocked based on egos and bad middle management.Edited 2008-01-06 16:05 Sun, 06 Jan 2008 16:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (buff) Comments Who maintains RPM? http://www.osnews.com/thread?294574 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294574 What is the official version of RPM?

Is it...
http://www.rpm.org/
http://rpm5.org/
http://wraptastic.org/blog/ Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (aaronb) Comments RE: Who maintains RPM? http://www.osnews.com/thread?294575 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294575 the official rpm is at: http://www.rpm.org/

rpm5 is a fork. Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (bpepple) Comments RE: Honk! Honk! http://www.osnews.com/thread?294578 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294578 Well, rpm is available out-of-the box on AIX... Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (CrLf) Comments RE: Who maintains RPM? http://www.osnews.com/thread?294582 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294582 http://packages.debian.org/dpkg Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (bthylafh) Comments Looks nice http://www.osnews.com/thread?294585 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294585 A fork, which might catch up if a disto embraces it. (e.g. if someone at Red Hat/Suse/Mandriva notices). A problem might be that it was removed RPMv3 package support which is a LSB requirement (but that can be handled by a separate RPM version even in the same system).

Now I believe deb/dpkg has advantage because it doesn't have N forks and support dist-upgrades (to upgrade to the new upstream version), while rpm's big advantage IMHO is multi-arch package support. So both have their set of advantages and drawbacks.

Maybe big distros should overcome the NIH syndrome and concentrate on creating a new common package standard (what ever happened to deb2 proposal?) as a base for their systems, because now both are very similar. I think big point should be to add to it a system for signed 3rd party and per-user (installed for a local user(s)) packages, a la ZeroInstall. Sun, 06 Jan 2008 19:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (siki_miki) Comments RE: Looks nice http://www.osnews.com/thread?294588 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294588 We (Mandriva) originally used rpm5.org RPM, when the fork happened. We have recently switched to using rpm.org. Sun, 06 Jan 2008 19:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (AdamW) Comments RE: Looks nice http://www.osnews.com/thread?294595 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294595 """
A fork, which might catch up if a disto embraces it. (e.g. if someone at Red Hat/Suse/Mandriva notices).
...
Maybe big distros should overcome the NIH syndrome and concentrate

"""

Please read Gilboa's link, above. Sun, 06 Jan 2008 20:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sbergman27) Comments RE[2]: Looks nice http://www.osnews.com/thread?294598 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294598 Could you tell us why you have done that?

I have nothing against rpm.org or rpm5.org since I am an old Debian user. I'm just curious...

Kind regards,Edited 2008-01-06 20:47 Sun, 06 Jan 2008 20:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (ikeX) Comments RE[3]: Real deal? http://www.osnews.com/thread?294600 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294600 Looks like xar is more an alternative to formats like zip and tar+gz, rather than a package format in itself.

Looks like RPM5 uses xar and defines a new RPM-like packaging format on top of it. Not sure what problem that's intended to solve. Sun, 06 Jan 2008 22:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (raboof) Comments RE[3]: Real deal? http://www.osnews.com/thread?294602 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294602
Johnson makes a reasonable argument that typing 'yum update' should not leave your system in a fragmented state if only part of a package is installed.


Ur, that was the argument put forth by everyone in that thread *except* Johnson, right? ;) . Sun, 06 Jan 2008 22:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (raboof) Comments RE[3]: Looks nice http://www.osnews.com/thread?294606 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294606 I prefer not to discuss it as Jeff is on record as saying that I know nothing about the topic, which I wouldn't like to disagree with. ;) You might like to ask Pixel, who made the change. pixel AT mandriva D O T com. Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (AdamW) Comments RE[4]: Looks nice http://www.osnews.com/thread?294608 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294608 Despite the project's loss of Mandriva, Fedora, RHEL, CentOS, and Suse, it has managed to retain such popular Linux powerhouses as CAOS Linux, PLD Linux, and... well... CAOS Linux and PLD Linux. Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sbergman27) Comments RE[2]: Honk! Honk! http://www.osnews.com/thread?294620 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294620 Since Linus forked it ;)

I think the tongue in cheek part was missed by 1 or 2 people here. Plus 1, back to 0.

On topic: The Red Hat/Fedora/SuSE/Mandriva kind of RPM has never failed us. I am not sure if I fully understand the benefits of this RPM5, but if it adds something, why not?

Cheers. Mon, 07 Jan 2008 00:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (boblowski) Comments RE[2]: Honk! Honk! http://www.osnews.com/thread?294641 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294641 "Well, rpm is available out-of-the box on AIX..."

And AIX is a UNIX. Another UNIX is FreeBSD where RPM is available, too.

But I may ask a question. The article's description is "RPM Package Manager (RPM)". The FreeBSD ports collection lists RPM as "The Red Hat Package Manager". So, is RPM the correct abbreviation for this title or is it an recursive acronym (RPM = RPM Package Manager)?

Regarding UNIX vs. Linux, see linear algebra: the "is a", "is part of" and "is like a" identity, subset and similarity relations. :-) Mon, 07 Jan 2008 02:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Doc Pain) Comments RE[3]: Honk! Honk! http://www.osnews.com/thread?294656 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294656 The original abbreviation was Red Hat Package Manager, but later they changed it to RPM Package Manager. Mon, 07 Jan 2008 05:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mikad) Comments RE[3]: Real deal? http://www.osnews.com/thread?294662 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294662 I don't think you understood what was Johnson said (and why he got canned.)

The reporter claimed that the RPM state must always be consistent. RPM should have failed gracefully when trying to install a package on RO storage. (instead of being corrupted - read: stating that a certain application is installed when it isn't)
Johnston claimed that if the user is stupid enough to try and install RPMs on a read only storage, the RPM is not required to keep a consistent state when things get busted.

Software 101 - no matter how stupid your user get, your application must not crash and/or stay in an inconsistent state.

- Gilboa Mon, 07 Jan 2008 05:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (gilboa) Comments RE[2]: Looks nice http://www.osnews.com/thread?294670 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294670 AdamW --

While you may be entitled to speak for "We(Mandriva)", you have no right to use my name in the first person (as if you know me) in public.

In fact, you do not know me.

In fact, I've pointed this out to you before.

Cease and desist.

73 de Jeff Mon, 07 Jan 2008 07:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (n3npq) Comments RE[4]: Real deal? http://www.osnews.com/thread?294671 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294671 Employment 101: Do what your bosses tell you to do.

You really need to think through the connections between a nearly
4 year old bug report and the release of rpm-5.0.0.

Continued public speculation regarding "(why he got canned)" is
going to get you personally in trouble.

Cease and desist immediately. Mon, 07 Jan 2008 07:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (n3npq) Comments RE[2]: Real deal? http://www.osnews.com/thread?294672 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294672 In fact, I forked rpm in June 2003.

Would you care to explain how a bug report from
March 2004 is "one of the reasons fof Jeff Johnson" fork?

Cease and desist.

73 de Jeff Mon, 07 Jan 2008 08:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (n3npq) Comments RE[3]: Looks nice http://www.osnews.com/thread?294681 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294681 Dude, seriously, lay off!

As far as I and many others are concerned, AdamW is a well respected contributer to this forum. Your sad attempts to sound like you have any legal muscle when it comes to people points you disagree with is pathetic.

Your not making any friends pretending you have some weight to throw around. This is an online forum, if you don't like whats being said, go somewhere else. Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (SReilly) Comments RE[4]: Looks nice http://www.osnews.com/thread?294682 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294682
you have no right to use my name in the first person (as if you know me) in public.


Do you have the right to use his nickname (AdamW)? Seriously, WTF?
He didnt even use your name, whatever the it is, in the post you responded to. Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Soulbender) Comments RE[5]: Looks nice http://www.osnews.com/thread?294687 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294687 I have the right to respond to a posting identified by "AdamW" yes.

AdamW has no right to use my name familiarly. Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (n3npq) Comments RE[3]: Real deal? http://www.osnews.com/thread?294688 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294688 Different side of the story: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/6/5/101431/9311

While I seriously doubt that Jeff wrote that, it's still a funny read.

Marcus Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (marcusoverhagen) Comments RE[5]: Real deal? http://www.osnews.com/thread?294696 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294696 What?
What does your post have to do with this thread? (beyond trying hard to get people to mod it down to -5 as off-topic)

- Gilboa Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (gilboa) Comments RE[4]: Real deal? http://www.osnews.com/thread?294698 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294698 ... I found it far less funny.
Sadly enough his current employer doesn't have access to this blog.

- Gilboa Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (gilboa) Comments RE[5]: Real deal? http://www.osnews.com/thread?294706 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294706 EDIT: Checked who you are.

As a general rule, before you start threatening people with law-suites (I assume that this is the next logical step - once you finish sending your cease and desist messages) you should -really- check where they live and learn something (or two) about their local law.

Somehow your response here doesn't surprise me a bit given your past behavior.

- GilboaEdited 2008-01-07 12:53 Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (gilboa) Comments RE[4]: Real deal? http://www.osnews.com/thread?294708 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294708 Just so Mr. "Cease and desist"'s lawyer won't chase me into oblivion, please replace:
"(and why he got canned.)" with
"(and why, he was allegedly [according to certain sources] got canned)"

- Gilboa "hiding under a rock; switching off the Internet; changing my forwarding address to Iraq" Davara. Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (gilboa) Comments RE[6]: Looks nice http://www.osnews.com/thread?294714 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294714 I -really- don't get you.
Do you really believe that posting threatening messages on open (or closed) forums will get your RPM fork accepted into Fedora/SUSE/Mandriva/etc?

You do understand how it makes you look, right?

- Gilboa Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (gilboa) Comments RE[6]: Looks nice http://www.osnews.com/thread?294726 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294726 I'm pretty sure using your name familiarly is not against the law anywhere. Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Soulbender) Comments RE[4]: Real deal? http://www.osnews.com/thread?294727 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294727 Heh. Is Jeff Johnson an alter ago for Tuomo Valkonen? Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Soulbender) Comments RE[3]: Real deal? http://www.osnews.com/thread?294796 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294796 This is very funny. I just tried this with a Debian box that has read only /usr and... aptitude update worked, install failed, remove failed. No package db inconsistencies were introduced. Installing and removing after /usr was remount,rw worked normally.

Gotta love RPM! Mon, 07 Jan 2008 18:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sorpigal) Comments RE[3]: Honk! Honk! http://www.osnews.com/thread?294927 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294927 For details of what rpm-5.0 adds, try reading the rationale
for adoption of rpm-5.0 by OpenPKG at

http://trainofthoughts.org/blog/2008/01/06/rpm5-vs-rpm/ Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (n3npq) Comments RE[7]: Looks nice http://www.osnews.com/thread?294930 http://www.osnews.com/thread?294930 There's a bit more to rpm-5.0 than links to kuroshin and
bugzilla #119185. The issues are several years old if
you bothered to look at times and dates.

Why do you think I care what rpm version Fedora, SuSE, Mandriva
or any other vendor distribution uses? rpm5.org is now a full fledged,
vendor neutral, OSS project. That was never the case when I worked
@redhat.com, and (if you look at the membership and roadmaps
at the"official" rpm.org site) is very much not the case now.

For those interested in the differences between rpm.org and rpm5.org,
I again point to the rationale behind OpenPKG's decision to assist
setting up infrastructure for rpm5.org:

http://trainofthoughts.org/blog/2008/01/06/rpm5-vs-rpm/ Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (n3npq) Comments