Matthew Woehlke wrote: > Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >> Matthew Woehlke wrote: >>> Current workflow: >>> svn up >>> make >>> make install >>> some-app >>> >>> Proposed workflow: >>> svn up >>> make >>> rpm-dev-install . >>> some-app >>> >>> See how painless that was? And now, rather than 'make install' littering >>> my drive with untracked files, the helper: >>> - rolled an incremental RPM >>> - updated the existing package >>> - ...which removed any old files no longer there >>> - ...and added/updated any modified files >>> - updated the rpm database to note that some-app is now installed (if it >>> wasn't) >>> - ...which also means that if some-app uses libfoo-devel, rpm now >>> knows this and won't remove libfoo-devel until I remove some-app >> >> The thing is you missed that in my current workflow there is no make >> install. So the issues you have with it dirtying up the drive don't >> exist and all the work (or simply waiting for a package and install step >> to finish) between the make step and invocation of some-app are extra >> overhead. > > Well, then, see my reply to Patrice, here: > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/91312 > > I'm not trying to solve the 'install-less' workflow; the benefit from > that is IMO considerably less than the workflow *I* have, which I > illustrated above. (In fact, the only benefit at that point is > dependency marking. File tracking is irrelevant, and if you haven't > installed, you aren't providing anything, so you have only one of the > three benefits to rpm installs.) > Exactly! Which is why your solution isn't really an answer for pruning leaf packages. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
