[Comm-en] RPM in ALT Linux (4.0.4 vs 4.13)
imz at altlinux.org
Sun Sep 4 19:11:17 MSK 2016
On Sun, 4 Sep 2016, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Ivan Zakharyaschev <imz at altlinux.org> wrote:
>>> package in ALT Linux, and I was wondering if you guys had contemplated
>>> upgrading from rpm 4.0.4 to rpm 4.13?
>> glebfm@ and legion@ are busy now with this.
>> They could give most details about this process.
>> The first thing to do on this way was to rebase many ALT's features onto
>> rpm(-install)-4.13. (Not yet features relevant for rpm-build.)
> I'm sorry, I'm not too familiar with ALT's rpm setup, what is rpm-install?
Simply, there is the rpm-build part of RPM which is used to create files
of RPM format; and the "other" part, the essential one, the tool of the
administrator which takes an RPM file and installs it, etc. To distinguish
this basic part from rpm-build, we have been calling it rpm-install
(Theoretically, they are not tightly connected, and any other tool could
be used instead of the standard rpm-build to produce RPM files if you
target a distro which uses rpm to install packages, to control their
dependencies etc. So, if someone thinks that the language of spec-files is
ugly--like me--one can think about creating an alternative tool to
describe the packages in another language, but still submit them to the
same distro; for example, I'm interested in the way nix packages are done,
and sometimes I'm thinking about various proxies like a tool to build an
RPM package from nix rules, but also other kinds of proxies, in order to
make the current work in ALT Sisyphus and in NixOS closer and more
suitable for exchanging packages, switching the sources of the "specs".)
>>  https://www.altlinux.org/Rpm-4.13
>>> like to see the ALT Linux rpm maintainer team be involved in upstream
>>> rpm.org development, as I'm sure your perspective would be valuable to
>>> ensure a vibrant ecosystem around rpm.
>> As said, there are a few ALT-specific nice, important and non-trivial
>> features in RPM, which would always require maintaining a separate fork
>> unless they are taken up by another RPM project, say, the rpm-4.13 project.
>> Then the forces could be joined.
> If any of you guys who know about the extra features of your variant
> of rpm can talk about them, it'd be great if they could bring them up
> in the rpm-ecosystem mailing list to propose for them to be merged
> upstream into the rpm.org codebase. Florian Festi (the manager of the
Thanks for the links! Let's look forward. One more small comment from
me: in a sense, it would be a good moment now to merge some patches right
after Gleb has rebased the features onto 4.13, so that there is no delta.
If you are interested in the patches, of course, you can have a look in
the Git repository in the linked task (in one of the linked posts) and ask
the authors any questions, but I'd suggest to wait until it is committed
to ALT Sisyphus; then, it would be in a more finalized state.
> rpm project) is always interested in receiving patches for new
> features and such. Patches are accepted via rpm-maint mailing list
> or GitHub. Discussions can also occur on IRC on Freenode in
> #rpm-ecosystem and #rpm.org.
More information about the community-en