RFC: Web packages and Prefix:

[Aredridel]

On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 15:31, Mariusz Mazur wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 of August 2003 23:23, Aredridel wrote:
> > Good point.  I should look and see how hard it would be to do inside of
> > RPM. . . perhaps represented with virtual package names --
> > Squirrelmail(prefix=/foo), squirrelmail(prefix=/bar)
> 
> This are generaly big changes. Since kloczek is dead and gone I must ask - do 
> we have anybody in contact with rpm maintainers? If not - any volunteers?

Not I -- yet.  In a month (maybe a bit more), I will have recovered my
server enough to have free time.  ext3 ate my server... RAM was bad,
kernel got confused, deleted /etc and more.

> I think this is a very very very good idea, but implementing it in a good way 
> would be a little to much to make it a patch. And I don't like the 'hack this 
> and that' approach.

Nor do I.  I would love to see RPM actually make this go.  Also, having
sane semantics for multiple versions installed would be nice:

   When upgrading, offer to remove any old versions that don't break
   dependencies.  

   Upgrade older versions:  if openssl 0.9.7a and 0.9.6b are installed, 
   and openssl-0.9.7b and openssl-0.9.6j are available, install both 
   new, and remove both old.  Difficult algorithms, though.  I should
   ask on the RDF group for good ways to optimize that query.

   Different prefixes for same version.

Basically, the primary key of the database would be
name,(epoch+version+release),prefix, but for updates, try name-prefix,
then fully qualified.  Not easy stuff to manage.

Ari
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : /mailman/pipermail/pld-devel-en/attachments/20040626/c6c9e705/attachment-0002.bin