Hi, On Tue, 22 May 2007, Duncan Mac-Vicar Prett wrote:
basically all of the concepts could have been implemented as rpms.
Patterns and patches doesnt have any difference. Both are policies. Or a set of dependencies.
Yes, (I think "policies" is the wrong word here, policies are sets of rules, not really sets of dependencies).
You could in theory create a dummy rpm with no files, that depends/recommends other packages, and it is named pattern-FOO-X.Y.noarch.rpm.
Exactly.
RPM dependencies assume that kind is "package" because you can only depend on packages. So you either implement everything as rpms, or only packages. For patterns, and even patches this could work. But how do you make a pattern require a language resolvable if the languages are not implemented as rpm?
As you said, you also implement languages as such rpm. You would need to implement all resolvables as rpms. For patterns as patches that is indeed the natural way. I'm not sure what other Kinds you have. For instance what's a language Kind? Anyway, it would have had quite some advantages to leverage rpms for all these kinds. Not the least of them being to be able to see very easily what patches and patterns (and other kinds) you actually have installed, and being able to uninstall them easily.
It would have been worth to explore anyway.
IMHO Patches and Patterns should become policies. They are only rules.
I don't see the connection at all. What's rules about Patterns or Patches? Patterns are dependencies and patches are sets of file changes. Ciao, Michael. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-softwaremgmt+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-softwaremgmt+help@opensuse.org