[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RH4.2?
On Thu, 14 Aug 1997, Yaron wrote:
(this is continuing a discussion me and Yaron had about RH, and it became
interesting enough to continue here)
[ yaron: I won't upgarde my 4.1 to 4.2 since I recompiled new gcc. perl
and other stuff manually since then and it will be stepped over]
> > it won't downgrade any RPMs you installed. if you compiled them manually
> > without updating the database manually too, you're out of luck, what can I
> > say?
>
> "RPM sucks" ?
nope. RPM has yet to be implemented as flags inside the binaries
themselves to be utterly accurate and usefull. the fact is it will sucseed
better on systems like Sun where most users get ready-made updates from
the vendor and don't compile their own. RPM or any other software for that
matter, can't tell what's a file's version number just by looking at it or
it's modifiers in the filesystem, text and config files are even more of a
problem, some binaries will give you version numbers if the author added a
-v switch, but even that is not a standard format. I think ELF should
include such a standard (if it doesn't already).
I hate to admit this, but this is one of those rare things that Microsoft
did that works right. every binary and DLL on a windows machine has an
internal version and revision encoded in a standard way, RPM just records
that same info in a central database.
anyone has any ideas how to improve this, or maybe there is something I am
missing?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ira Abramov <ira@scso.com> Scalable Solutions
POBox 3600, Jerusalem 91035, Israel Tel (972)2-642-6822
http://www.scso.com/~ira Check out: http://www.linux.org.il
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: RH4.2?
- From: Yaron <yaron@Starlight.trendline.co.il>