[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: 2 bugs in rpmio (ftp)

On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 04:50:01PM -0500, Mark Amidon wrote:
> Jeff Johnson wrote:
> > Which brings me back to my original question
> > 
> >         Should rpm have support for *any* protocols?
> > 
> > as the issues above aren't exactly about package management.
> That depends.  It looks like there are several reasons not to install
> from a remote source, but I'll add a question to yours:
> 	Should rpm be both a package manager and a query tool?
> ...because I still find the FTP/HTTP support in rpmq to be a lifesaver,
> but if rpmq is going to be split out of the rest of rpm, then the
> protocol support only needs to be in rpmq (in my humble opinion, of
> course).

That's one I can answer. rpm is being split into 5 separate executables
along major modes of execution, there's simply no other way to simplify
the plethora of command line options.

Most of the hard work was done in rpm-4.0, what remains is to vet command
line options and make sure that --help is correct, write man pages etc.

So, yes, there will be a separate executable called /usr/bin/rpmquery
that will have all the query (and verify) modes, that almost certainly will
permit remote querying even if install/build/database/signing executables
do not.

BTW, if you do try rpmquery, you'll need to change all the lines in
/usr/lib/rpm/rpmpopt-* that start with "rpmq" to start with "rpmquery",
haven't got there yet.

73 de Jeff

Jeff Johnson	ARS N3NPQ
jbj@jbj.org	(jbj@redhat.com)
Chapel Hill, NC

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index] []