Bug 7122 - FEATURE: "combo packages"
Summary: FEATURE: "combo packages"
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Linux
Classification: Retired
Component: rpm
Version: 6.1
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jeff Johnson
QA Contact:
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 1999-11-18 23:17 UTC by Pierre Phaneuf
Modified: 2008-05-01 15:37 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2002-02-11 12:53:01 UTC

Attachments (Terms of Use)

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?).

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.