On Sat, 18 Dec 2004, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 11:58:45 +0100, nodata
<fedora(a)nodata.co.uk> wrote:
> An rpm tool doesn't care about the filename, so why remove it?
You have missed the point entirely. The filaname for an rpm is
typically constructed from a number of header tags as part of the
build process. The distrotags that are being used arent just in the
filename they are in the RELEASE tag. You can have this sort of
information in the filename without having it in the RELEASE tag.
Maybe you don't understand, the rpm tool does care about what is in
the RELEASE tag, because the release tag is used during version
comparisons when you want to decide what is newer or older for
updates.
Jeff, I know you didn't read the whole thread, but let me give you a
summary:
The current scheme has the following advantages:
+ It does not require a change to RPM (and works for _all_ distributions)
+ It does not require a change to other RPM based tools like
Yum/Apt/up2date/smart
+ It allows the user to recognize the vendor:
+ from the filename (ls)
+ from the package-list output (rpm -qa)
+ from the output of tools like Yum/Apt/up2date/smart
+ It allows the user to recognize what distribution it was build for
+ from the filename (ls)
+ from the package-list output (rpm -qa)
+ from the output of tools like Yum/Apt/up2date/smart
+ It enables users to do file manipulations based on the filename
+ It allows people to build trust for packages because the source becomes
visible (this works in both ways, if a package is good or bad)
+ It does not intervene with version comparison in a dramatic way (as
the release tag only makes sense in a single vendor namespace anyway)
Seth calls it branding, which is a term that disregards all these
advantages.
PS Can you please not reply with paragraphs that span my whole terminal
window as I tend to skim these anyway. Please stick to the point.
-- dag wieers, dag(a)wieers.com,
http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]