On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 11:27, Craig White wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 10:18 -0700, Collins Richey wrote:
> > Has anyone had good/bad experiences with smart?
> ---
> good
> ---
> > Looks like the ideal
> > way to maintain your system at first glance.
> ---
> seems that way to me too
It looks like it may help with the 'multiple conflicting repository'
issues, but there are some other problems with existing tools.
Does it add any way to
(a) make sure the repository is in a consistent state during
the update, and
(b) perform updates on production machines making sure that
they get exactly the same packages that have been previously
tested, regardless of subsequent additions to the repository?
The yum maintainers have suggested keeping 2 local mirror copies
of the entire repository to accomplish this (with associated
config changes and manual package copying) but that seems like
a horrible amount of overhead just to make a tool work predictably.
Couldn't something like subversion be put under the covers to
allow atomic commits of all dependent packages at once into
the repository and allow upgrades (or downgrades) to tags or
timestamps? This seems like a job that needs exactly the set
of functions provided by a revision control package.
--
Les Mikesell
les@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
