On Mer 22 juin 2005 04:43, Dan Trainor wrote: > Your concerns and warnings are very helpful, thank you. However, these > RPMs will be installed by a strictly managed "team" of individuals, and > through some kickstart hackery, and the packages will be designed for > that purpose. They will not be used with GUI installers or package > managers, aside from RPM itself. That's the usual excuse and it's not a good one. Common rpm tools are here to alleviate installation and maintenance pain. If you forcibly do not follow the common rpm model whatever savings you may have during packaging time will be eaten by maintenance costs quickly. My advice is not to try to create semi-broken packages. Strive for clean packages and you'll usually find out it's easier and cheaper this way. And yes that means giving up on some features of other broken installer systems. Scriplets must be minimalistic. If they're not you're doing something wrong. There are very good reasons why most closed software available in rpm form is repackaged in the wild. People have found out that repackaging stuff is cheaper for them than to try to manage the havoc all the "smart" rpm scriplets can work on a system. This is not "zealotry". "Zealotry" is going against core design decisions of the tools you use and expect them to perform as usual. Classical "shortcut" syndrome. -- Nicolas Mailhot
