On Wed, 2005-10-26 at 23:33, Mike McCarty wrote:
> >>By "package" I mean a managed release.
> >
> >
> > You mean something that has internally known dependencies that
> > must be met during installation and update?
>
> Yes. And which has been through integration test to ensure
> that all the parts work together.
> FC does not support this concept, as it is a project, and not
> a product.
I don't see the distinction. Products continue to change
too.
> There is no configuration management nor packaging
> being done, beyond establishing baselines at certain intervals
> via release of a named version.
No packaging? What do you call an RPM? No management?
What do you call the versioning and dependencies?
> > We are talking about fedora here. You are the tester. It is
> > guaranteed to interoperate only after you stop reporting that
> > it is broken.
>
> Which in no way contradicts anything I have said. I stated that
> what one fellow wanted seemed to be a request to have packages.
> This is something which really doesn't seem to suit the FC
> Project as opposed to Product philosophy.
It does have packages and his particular problem involved
having installed a package that was no longer supported.
Since he didn't actually need the problem package, he
could fix the situation easily by telling his _package_
manager to remove it: 'rpm -e ...'. By contrast, all the
other _packages_ do have correctly maintained dependencies
across the updated minor versions.
> > No, it is up to yum and the known dependencies. If the dependencies
> > are wrong, the testers need to report it or it won't be fixed.
>
> Yes, it is up to the individual to decide the content of any given
> install. AFAICS, yum is just a fancy transport and install tool.
Fancy in the sense that it understands the dependency requirements
and takes care of them as they change.
> Dependencies cannot create packages on their own, because they
> are susceptible to global inconsistencies.
Packages can't be created if the dependencies can't be met.
> We have a case in point
> which led to this very thread of discussion.
If the package that started the discussion was something
necessary or that needed to be maintained, then you would
have a point, but it would be that there is a bug that
needs to be fixed, not that the concept doesn't work
to maintain a product.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
