pmatilai left a comment (rpm-software-management/rpm#2197)
Okay, time to face reality: this is not going to make it to 6.0 or v6 format by
default. Supporting multi-arch is MUCH deeper than just the appearance of
dependency tokens, and we don't want to rush in a partial solution that might
come back to bite us when looking at the bigger picture.
We'll come back to this at a better time, the PQC related wave that hit us
simply ate the bandwidth reserved for looking at multiarch this time around. It
happens.
This doesn't mean we should wait until v7 to look at it again. On the contrary,
the v6 journey has taught me that the only way to do radical changes in rpm is
to do them optionally in the existing stable branch, and then once those are
sufficiently widely deployed in the ecosystem, you can actually flip them as
defaults in the next major format. And, we shouldn't wait another 20 years to
introduce v7 π
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2197#issuecomment-2705728108
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: <rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2197/2705728...@github.com>
_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
https://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
