On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 10:58 +0100, Michael Schroeder wrote: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 04:55:17AM -0500, Benjy Grogan wrote: > > You said you have to keep around the old rpms and you meant the repos have > > to keep around the old rpms? > > No. I said you have to have the old rpms for delta generation (if you > don't use the chain approach). > > > Does the user (me) have to store the old rpms > > on my hard drive to be combined with the delta rpms? It really seems that throughout this thread, OO seems to be one of the big reasons for even bothering with all of these patch-rpm arrangements. What if OO could somehow be modularized in a manner similar to X? I don't know how much of OO is compiled code vs data files and it may turn out that even that doesn't provide that much of a win. It just really seems that trying to get all of these deltas and such will wind up providing considerably less gain in the end than all of the effort to make it happen. And there would quite possibly be the nasty side effect of things getting terribly inconsistent and turning straight into a Windows administration-type nightmare. -- David Hollis <dhollis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
