On Tue, 22 May 2007, Duncan Mac-Vicar Prett wrote:
> > mental model of patches is a blob of dependencies and some file deltas,
> > where the file deltas is the more important part. But I guess it's not
> > important how my mental model is. It doesn't help nor hinder their
> > implementation as actual rpms.
> Actually they are just metadata that depends on newer rpms. The fact
> that some of these rpms can be installed downloading delta/patch rpms is
> something evaluated at commit time and not at solving time, thus the
> patch does not need to know about rpms at all, it only need to express
> which version of a group of packages fixes the problem. The commit logic
> should grab and rpm and install it, or download a script and run it to
> patch a binary, or get a delta rpm, or untar something in /.
> So the file delta is just an implementation detail, but it is not in the
> patch itself.
Right. That's why I said my mental model of patches includes the delta.
If it really is inside the patch or not (or for that matter if a patch
consists of one file, or a set of files) wasn't that interesting for me in
that discussion. It's obvious that the file delta part of patches is
better implemented as dependencies on versioned rpms, instead of
duplicating them directly into the physical patch. But conceptually (to
me!) a patch includes that delta.
But that's all not very important. What's much more important IMHO is to
try to implement patterns as rpms.
> Note: in our current metadata it is, but just because the patch format
> is missdesigned. They not need to be there (therefore all packages are
> duplicated inside the patch and the primary file!!)
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-softwaremgmt+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-softwaremgmt+help(a)opensuse.org