Re: [Sheflug] suse source rpms

[zzzz <nospam [at] zapata.freeserve.co.uk>]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote:

> RPM is Evil.  Check out the changes to bash source _required_ to
> support RPM The Next Mutation on Red Hat Rawhide.  So much for the
> principle of minimal changes to the upstream sources.

I checked it out, and the changes are not too big. They added a feature.

> 
> Why don't they just fork[1] their own shell (but that would of course
> be RHash) and be done with it?

> Footnotes:
> [1]  According to GNU's stated principles, they should not accept
> patches to Bash to support one non-GNU program's special demands.
> We'll see.

That's why it's not part of the official bash tree, and its supplied
as a small patch. Way too small to consider a fork.

Anyway, I think RPM is great (any package manager, for that matter),
because I'm too lazy to keep my own database of hand-copied files.

Jules
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheffield Linux User's Group - http://www.sheflug.co.uk
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to
- <sheflug-request [at] vuw.ac.nz> - with the word 
 "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. 

  GNU the choice of a complete generation.