Axel Thimm wrote:
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 08:14:28PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 01:14:35AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
RPM is not designed for downgrades
One of the core features of rpm from the very beginning was to
downgrades and uninstalls so the user is able to revert from a bad
package.
I didnt see any RPM design documents
Cool, you found rpm design documents?
mention downgrades so I am curious where you got this impression
from. A few examples,
http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/drafts/rpm-guide-en/ch01s02.html
http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-intro-to-rpm-rpm-design-goals.html
While there are command line arguments that would let RPM perform
downgrades and even ignore dependencies, I wouldnt claim it was designed
for such things.
Rahul, I don't see what you're trying to get at. It is known that both
documents have been written after the fact and that maximum rpm
contains many inaccuracies even though it was the sole documentation
available for users for several years.
What am I pointing out is that what functionality RPM offers is
different from what is being designed for. Example: RPM's ability to
ignore dependencies. I never heard any RPM developer describe rpm's
ability to do downgrades as part of its design (quite the opposite) nor
did I see it being described as such in any RPM guides.
Furthermore it's also a fact that if a Red Hat/Fedora package is not
downgradable it is considered a bug.
Sure but there is no QA being done on this and has higher chances of
bugs than upgrades. Rollback is much more harder to implement correctly
than upgrades. So I would advise caution when doing either. I am out.
Rahul
