On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 00:48 -0500, Callum Lerwick wrote: > On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 12:33 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > I would turn this argument around: rpm missed its opportunities "to do > > various things" forcing people to circumvent rpm's limitations by > > ruck-sacking rpm with add-ons such as yum, yast/ycl etc. > > Oh come on. How is layered, loosely coupled, encapsulated separation of > concerns NOT good design? The point is: Any actions on rpm must be performed through rpm (rsp. corresponding library calls= only. In other words: rpm -U|-i|-e must work. High end frontends such as yum/smart/apt/yast must not performing additional hacks interfering into the system (e.g. prelinking) or the rpmdata bases. > The diversity of RPM front ends is a sign we're doing things right. I disagree. Provided the history of rpm, I take the diversity of highlevel RPM front ends, as a sign of diverging interest and of influence of vendor hegemony. > Do we want to drag all of Yum's deps (python, and so on) down in to RPM > itself? C.f. above. > How about C++? Implementation detail. > RPM should be kept as small and simple as possible. It should perform what is necessary to make rpm -U|-i|-e etc. deterministically working. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
