Unidentified subject!
>Donnie Barnes wrote:
>>
>> While I understand the sentiment of the original post on this topic,
>> I can't agree with it. When RPM was designed things like package
>> naming were thought about in great detail. I'd rather hear what's
>> *wrong* with the current naming scheme than what's *right* about
>> your new one. I don't care much about the extension, but things
>> like release numbers are important. Limiting yourself to triplets
>> is, well, limiting.
>
>Fair enough (maybe), but where can I find the details on the current schemes?
>I tried the Debian and Red Hat sites, and the specs for their package formats
>aren't exactly staring you in the face. Just because something is a de facto
>(read RPM) standard doesn't mean that it's best, it is worth examining the
>limitations of .rpm and .deb to see if things can be improved.
>
>Additionally, from what I've noticed when installing a new RPM, only config
>files are preserved, binaries are overwritten (at least as default), this
>means that if the new package is broken, I have to reinstall the old package,
>ie have two versions of a package floating around, this is opposed to
>uninstalling the new package. It's no good assuming that you will never get a
>broken package because you will.
>
>James
>
This is why i proposed to study a disinstalling procedure to restore the old
package over the new one.
we should just analize which is the best way for this procedure.
i propose a sort of trash directory where it is possible to store the old
files and then to restore them.
Luigi Genoni
Reply to: