On Tuesday 22 May 2007 16:26:54 Michael Matz wrote:
Yes, (I think "policies" is the wrong word here, policies are sets of rules, not really sets of dependencies).
A set of requires, force you to have certain software installed. A patch is a policy, a rule. If you apply the policy cert-issue-2889 the rule s that you have to have apache > xy installed, this is a rule, but it is enforced via dependencies. Dependencies are the implementation, but on the highlevel, patterns and patches are just a set of rules you want to enforce on a system while the rule is "installed" (or "applied", and get notified when these rules are broken by any reason.
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.
Yes, it is certainly possible. But only via conventions (name the patches patch-* and patterns pattern-* for example)
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.
No, both are just a bunch of dependencies to pull more resolvables after you install them. -- Duncan Mac-Vicar Prett Novell :: SUSE R&D, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-softwaremgmt+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-softwaremgmt+help@opensuse.org