On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 14:30, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> I have to agree with someone else's post ... simple put (in
> my own words) ...
>
> What is it that you don't understand about
> the "costs" of configuration management?
The part I don't understand is why the tool built for the
purpose doesn't do what everyone needs it to do. Is that
simple enough? Yes, I know I can build my own system. I
know there are workarounds. I'd rather not.
> > Compare it to how you get a set of consistent updates from
> > a cvs repository where someone has tagged the 'known good'
> > states as the changes were added.
>
> Who says you can_not_ just use RCS/CVS/Subversions to track
> changes to your test system's RPM database and feed those
> into YUM ... HMMMMMM?!?!?! (hint, hint, hint, big-@$$ hint
I could keep rolling my own tarballs like I used to also. The
question is why everyone who is responding thinks it is a
good thing or at least expected that a new system designed
to manage packages does not do the simple and needed thing
that cvs has always done to make it possible to make updates
consistent and repeatable out of a changing repository.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
