Bug 103205
| Summary: | patch-rpm patch | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Michael Schröder <mls> | ||||
| Component: | rpm | Assignee: | Paul Nasrat <nobody+pnasrat> | ||||
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | |||||
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
| Priority: | low | ||||||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | leonard-rh-bugzilla, nmiell, pmatilai | ||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | FutureFeature, Patch | ||||
| Target Release: | --- | ||||||
| Hardware: | All | ||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Enhancement | |||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
| Last Closed: | 2007-06-05 12:57:54 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
| Embargoed: | |||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Michael Schröder
2003-08-27 18:29:49 UTC
Created attachment 93983 [details]
patch-rpm patch
The patch looks OK, but there is more to do to integrate with other features in rpm. I am still philosophically opposed to "patch packages", as I think they are overly complicated and obscure for insufficient gain. I.e. I don't believe that most packagers can figure out how to release a patch package that upgrades robustly everywhere. NEEDINFO so I don't have to see the bug, while I continue muddling what to do. At minimum, I'm willing to add patch somewhen underneath compile time option, default off, somewhen so that there is at least a reference rpm source code base. *** Bug 131768 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** I once had to download a 300 MB openoffice RPM to fix a one-line problem in the /usr/bin/ooffice shell script. That alone should be sufficient motivation for patch RPMs. Nowadays I prefer delta rpms, as applying the delta will get you a bytewise identical rpm, they are thus less error prone. The disadvantage of delta rpms is, of course, that a delta rpm is based on exactly one version, whereas patch rpms can be based on multiple versions. for comment #4: Speeding up downloading is no argument for patch/delta rpms. For starters, servers everywhere would need to generate patch/delta rpm's, not going to happen imho. Furthermore, using rsync would have speeded up your download without the complexity of patch/delta rpm's. A local template of OO.o rpm's (if not already available) could have been generated by erasing and repackaging OO.o. rpm payload's have been prepared with the equivalent of gzip --rsyncable switch for quite some years now. Comments on whether to apply the patch or not requested at
https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/rpm-devel/2007-April/002240.html
Current feedback says the patch packages are unreliable and unnedded. WONTFIX Yeah, agreed also on rpm-maint: https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/rpm-maint/2007-May/000317.html |