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

[Fwd: rpm and patching]


My understanding of this mail contents

With RPM packaging, I will not be able to deploy patches i.e., only the
modified files.
I have to ship the full package but the user with -U option can only
install the modified

I did see some "patch" command which can be used in the header section
preamble section.
Will I be able to build patch from this?

With this if I build a rpm package, will it be a full package or only
the patched files.

Please clarify.

--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 02:43:33PM -0500, brandon chubb wrote:
> Suppose you're creating a commercial product for Linux, and
> want a system of releasing patches.  What's the preferred method?
> I was happy to see 'rpm -U/-F' but it doesn't quite do what
> I want.  I want to be able to make an rpm patch that's sparsely
> populated to only replace objects that need patching, not the
> entire product.  I realize that rpm -U/-F will only replace
> what's changed, but why pack up what the customer doesn't need?
> (And of course it will remove all the files that it doesn't contain
> assuming its got the same base name.)
> The alternative is to name the patch package something different,
> say have foo1.0.0-1 for the product and foopatch1.0.0-1 for
> the patch train.  And just let the customer run rpm -i on each
> as its released.  But that means removal of a series of of these
> things upon a major upgrade -- kind of messy.
> Am I missing something, or does rpm not deal with sparse (binary)
> patches very well?

rpm deals with packages, not patches, nor files. If you want patch
management, rpm is not the implementation of choice.

73 de Jeff

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

Rpm-list mailing list

--- End Message ---

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