Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.

Bug 7122

Summary:	FEATURE: "combo packages"
Product:	[Retired] Red Hat Linux	Reporter:	Pierre Phaneuf <pp>
Component:	rpm	Assignee:	Jeff Johnson <jbj>
Status:	CLOSED RAWHIDE	QA Contact:
Severity:	low	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	6.1
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2002-02-11 12:53:01 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:

Description Pierre Phaneuf 1999-11-18 23:17:49 UTC

It would be nice to have a way of making a single package file that would
actually contain multiple full-blown packages.

The main idea with this is that by making the sub-packages have their own
entries in the RPM database, they could be upgraded separately or could
upgrade an already present package if the existing package is older.

Example: you have a combo package named foo-1.2-1.i386.rpm that contains
foo1-1.2-1.i386.rpm and foo2-1.1-6.i386.rpm. Doing this command:

rpm -Uvh foo-1.2-1.i386.rpm

would be exactly the same as doing this one:

rpm -Uvh foo1-1.2-1.i386.rpm foo2-1.1-6.i386.rpm

Together with "patch packages" (#7121), this would be nice (would enable
things like Sun's "combo patch").

Comment 1 Mike A. Harris 2002-02-11 12:52:56 UTC

I believe this is called transaction sets, and it might be implemented already.
jbj would have to comment on it though.

Comment 2 Jeff Johnson 2002-08-07 23:06:46 UTC

Actually, these are what I call "package bundles",
which are now possible because the rpm database permits
concurrent access. That means you can make a meta
rpm that runs "rpm -Uvh ..." in %post, and "rpm -e ..."
in %preun.

Dunno if it works, but all the above is now implemented,
so I'm gonna close this bug.

Comment 3 Pierre Phaneuf 2002-08-08 02:39:49 UTC

Where would the sub-packages RPM files be stored? I wouldn't want a "foo"
meta-package that contains a "foo1" and a "foo2" RPMs to leave these RPMs around
in some directory all the time that it exists. Can you have files part of a
package that are not "installed" on the system (they would be deleted after
%post, maybe?).