Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 103205
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:10:31 EST
Adds patch-rpm support to rpm. rpm4 port not really well tested...
Created attachment 93983 [details]
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
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
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
Current feedback says the patch packages are unreliable and unnedded.
Yeah, agreed also on rpm-maint: