Tony Earnshaw wrote: > Bob Proulx wrote, on 12. mar 2007 05:29: > > > RPMs seem like the best way to keep version control, especially because > > > it's such a widespread protocol. > > > >tar.gz files are even more widespread and popular. :-) > > I used to think like that before I got into serious sysadminning (even > you don't really think that, you're just provoking), but installing > often highly dependent stuff and configuring it on multiple systems with > a myriad of custom-written configuration scripts calls for versioning > and I haven't found anything better than rpm yet (old SCO, Novell > UnixWare, SGI and Solaris admin). Lest I am completely misunderstood let me clarify that I am strongly an advocate of packaging software into rpms. I actually think are are pretty much in agreement there. The part that I don't like is rpms that simply transport files and then make a mess of things in the '%post' script. I think a bad rpm is worse than no rpm. Perhaps that is our point of disagreement. If an rpm is nothing but a facade to fool the casual observer then I think that is a bad thing. I expect rpm installed files to 'rpm -qf /path/to/file' report the package that installed them (within reason and good judgement). I expect 'rpm -ql' to list the files in the package. I expect 'rpm -V' to be able to verify that the package is still installed cleanly. I expect 'rpm -Uvh' to proper upgrade to a newer version without problems. I expect 'rpm -e' to clean up properly. I expect that if I install the same rpm next week that it will install exactly the same way that it installs today. Repeatability and reliability matter. Bob _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
