That is an opinion, not a fact. I for one think those DLLs should not be in the eCS\DLL or OS2\DLL directories.
If you want to cause problems, you will not do it as I suggest. Sorry, but ONE location for ALL system DLLs is the only safe way to do it. In fact, it is really questionable if \eCS\DLL should exist. All of that stuff really belongs in \OS2\DLL. If you really want to use RPM/YUM, it puts all of that stuff into a single location, but the only protection against duplicate DLLs, is that they put that location first in LIBPATH.
How do you know fixes might be required?
How do you know they are not?
Again, opinion, not fact. How many people are using rpm, how many have consistent problems with it? I do use rpm,
I have been testing the Arca Noae package manager for about a month now. In that time, there have been multiple screw ups caused by YUM, two of them required manual intervention to fix them. I am also told, that Linux is moving away from YUM, to something that actually works.
Please provide evidence. Where and when did those developers state that "they know RPM/YUM is garbage"?
Actually, that is part of the problem. The ones who are doing it haven't figured that out, yet.
Perhaps you are mixing up intended behaviour that you don't like with broken.
More likely, I am assuming that it will do what it is supposed to do, and when it fails to do that, I assume it is broken.
System DLLs? They aren't system DLLs. They are support DLLs used specifically by programs ported from nix.
There are two kinds of DLLs. One is used only by a single program, and they should be in the program directory. The second are DLLs used by more than one program. They should be in a location available to all programs, therefore I call them "System DLLs". You can call them "support DLLs", if you like, but they still need to be available to the whole system, or something isn't going to work properly. It is also very important to have only ONE copy of a DLL, or version mismatches can occur, and that can result in "sometimes it works, and sometimes, it doesn't". Those things can be extremely difficult to analyze, and fix.
I will note, that there are cases where different versions of a DLL may be required for different programs (XUL.DLL in Firefox, Seamonkey, and Thunderbird, for instance). Those cases require special handling (I highly recommend RUN!), and the specific DLL needs to be in the program directory. It would actually be better if the DLLs were renamed, but that makes more work for those who port things.
Don't go on a rant about quality and start insulting developers, even making up things like they know themselves that their software is garbage, when it is your own mess you are dealing with.
I am dealing with a badly constructed installer. There is NO EXCUSE for that. It is simply unacceptable for a professional software firm to do things like that. Period. The techniques to do what needs to be done exist, and have existed for some time. It is not rocket science.