Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > 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 - Again, valid concerns here, and I do agree with you - to an extent. I've asked a few people how to do this over the last couple days, and not one of them told me how it can be done. All I've been told is the generic "it shouldn't be done", followed by a long list of reasons why said person thinks they're right. And again, I agree with them - to an extent. I understand that common RPM tools are here to alleviate installation and maintenance pain. The RPM model was chosen for this particular task for it's accounting ability, not necessarily it's ease of use, user-friendlyness (is that even a word? it is now), or TCO. There will be someone physically sitting at this machine when the RPM is installed, with information at hand, to complete the installation when prompted by this application. And for now, that's how it's going to work, regardless of if it's "correct" or not. This software will not be released into the wild. It will be kept strictly internal to the company which I work for. If you don't mind me asking, what is "shortcut" about prompting for information during an install? You talk about efficiency and effective use of time. I believe that efficiency and effective use of time involves the most stream-lined, automated setup and installation (and I'll agree that my situation is not "ideal"), but it would not involve me going back and re-installing or inserting some other piece of software after the RPM transaction has taken place. Thanks for your time -dant
