RE: (-) Sorry, your distribution type is unsupported.

[Gregory Leblanc <GLeblanc cu-portland edu>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Peters [mailto:itp helixcode com]
> 
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 08:05:31PM -0700, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
> > 
> > Por favor, and si vous plait, keep the FUD on MS mailing lists.
> 
> Things you don't agree with / don't understand != FUD.

Oh really?  By posting this, you've instilled Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt
in the minds of some of the people reading with regards to upgrading to RPM
4 and/or RedHat 7.  

> > There has been communication about the changes from RPM 3 
> to RPM 4, and
> > there seems to be pretty decent documentation of the rpmlib 
> API (IANAH, so I
> > can't say for sure).  There is only one distribution using 
> RPM 4, while many
> > are using RPM 3.  They did not BREAK any software, they 
> simply made it
> > incompatible.  If you want to use the old software on RH7, 
> you've got 2
> > options.  First, update the software to be able to use the 
> new API.  Second,
> > downgrade the version of RPM on RH7 to v3, and use the old 
> software.  Later,
> 
> Please, do tell, where is this documentation?

In the CVS repository for RPM, of course.

> Is it in the Maximum RPM book we have purchased?  No, wait, that
> documentation is for RPM 2.5.

There are updates for RPM v3, although nothing for RPM 4.

> Is it at www.rpm.org?  Again, that documentation is for RPM 2.5,
> except for a few code snippets ported to the RPM 3.0.x API.

> So I guess the next step is to look at the RPM headers.  Except that
> those actually misdocument RPM in places.  Try again.

WHERE?  I've not had trouble with any of the RPM headers being wrong.

> Please, I personally know any number of people who would love some
> accurate and current RPM documentation.

I didn't say there was documentation, I said there was communication.  You
can easily get a hold of the RPM developers, and get answers to development
questions.  As somewhere in between a developer and a user (I don't hack on
RPM, but I "hack" on spec files), I've found that I could get pretty decent
answers from Jeff et al. on the RPM list.  

> I do agree with you that Mathieu came down a little hard on the
> Red Hat people; it's their software to change, and their changes
> make sense to me, and they've been nothing but helpful when I've
> talked to them with RPM questions.  But I am a hacker, and your
> statements about docs are just plain wrong.

Never said anything about docs, just communication.  Guess I wasn't clear
enough, sorry.
	Greg