The problem with the file centric approach is that it is a radical departure from the system that's in place at the moment (the system being more than software: it's the whole process of creating packages, testing and managing all that). I think if this feature has any chance of making it into Fedora it must be implemented as a layer on-top of the software that's already there. Joe. On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:25:25 -0500, Paul A. Houle <ph18@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > If we were designing this kind of system as if users mattered, it might > make more sense to make it files-centric rather than rpm-centric. I > really hate the idea of making the system count on having rpms available, > because I'm not so good about keeping the original disks around. (Plus > the survival of optical disks is hit-or-miss. I've had some disks that > lasted 8 years after getting treated with moderate care, and I've had > other ones that I couldn't read after walking them across campus.) > > It seems just as feasable to send diffs of the ~files~ rather than diffs > of the ~rpms~; if we're going to go through the bother of implementing > something like this, it makes sense to make something that "just works" > rather than another one of these things that almost works (or rather, > works if you have the disks, works if you are ready to pull the disks out > if you have yum, kinda might work if you have a network install, maybe > it won't work.) > > This should be thought of as an optimization. If the files on the > disk don't checksum match the rpm database, we ought to download and > install the new rpm. > > ---- > > I've always wondered if the Red Hat Network would have been more > profitable if it had been less wasteful of bandwidth. > > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list >
