On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 16:47 -0300, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 03:39:55PM -0400, William L. Maltby wrote: > > Now if we can be sure that Yum understands that .rf, .plus, ... are all > > the same packages, we're home free. But ... are they the same packages? > > This may be a dumb question, but can we be sure firefox from one repo is > > compatible with what a user runs? Kernel features differences, etc. For > > firefox, maybe the answer is yes. Does that apply generally to other > > packages too? Is the "unprotect" solution certain to be "generally > > applicable"? OTOH, that is a user administration problem, isn't it? > > Actually, that is a minor issue. RPM itself has the final vote on > who is the newest package. So YUM really should not worry about it. > At least, I hope YUM uses rpmVersionCompare. You just provided the "connector" in my thinking. Another poster mentions DB, RPM has a DB, RPM's DB retains the external name, the external name contains ".rf", ".plus", ... Voila! Yum can, if it chooses, use the RPM DB, tell which repo provided the currently installed package instance, combine that with includepkgs/exclude, (un)protect, .... Another DB (yum.conf, repos, ... or a DBMS) can provide some additional "rules". > Rodrigo Barbosa > <snip sig stuff> -- Bill
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
