On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 10:58:21AM -0800, David Lutterkort wrote: > On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 08:27 -0600, Albert Chin wrote: > > Our packages have no external dependencies. > > Are you positive about that ? That would reduce your rpm's to a bunch of > text files (if you install scripts, you depend on the script > interpreter, like /bin/sh, if your scripts use rm, you depend on > coreutils, if you install ELF executables you depend on glibc etc.) I cannot imagine a RH system with coreutils or /bin/sh so we don't depend on them. > Even without external dependencies, having two rpm DB's defeats the > purpose of rpm: your users now need to remember that your packages go > into the special DB, while everything else goes in the normal DB; that > makes it possible for them to install the same rpm twice, install two > different versions of an rpm without anybody noticing etc. > > I highly recommend going to a one rpm DB setup. You'll save yourself a > lot of trouble. When we come up with a patch, we'll submit it, and let it up to you to decide on whether or not to include it. A bigger justification for multiple DBs is for central installation of RPM packages for multiple platforms (think installation to an NFS server). RPM can do this today with --relocate. We have customers installing packages for Solaris, HP, and AIX on a central server, using --relocate to install to an OS-specific directory on a central NFS server. Clients then mount the correct OS-specific directory. -- albert chin (china@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
