Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le lundi 10 novembre 2008 à 17:13 -0600, Les Mikesell a écrit :
I'm not sure I understand the logic of making upstream deal with the
problem that RPM's design introduces. There's rarely an issue if you
want to do parallel version installs out of an upstream source - and I'd
guess the developers _always_ do that for anything they rely on.
Developpers typically re-create configuration files and data files when
they do parallel installs. Thus they do not have to deal with
config/data format conversion and rollback. Which is the main problem in
doing rpm rollbacks, because unlike on dev stations, we can not afford
to lose of duplicate user data.
Yes, developers deal with well known real-world situations. If RPM
can't handle this, then perhaps it misses some important design concepts
- like letting the admin decide whether to duplicate or migrate data,
where to put the copies, and what scratch space to use for the process.
A packaging system could present a few simple forms for the needed
run-time choices as a commercial-quality product almost certainly would,
but by avoiding this concept completely, the distro forces the
admin/user to keep a whole spare machine whenever a fallback might be
needed and to find and understand all the low-level migration tools that
the developer would use but didn't have a way to package/automate
because the package manager couldn't accommodate it.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
