On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 14:55 -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
On Jun 25, 2008, at 11:49 AM, Denis Washington wrote:
I hope what is in the data structures is sufficient and well-defined
enough. And, what I increasingly tempt to believe, that we don't talk
past each other. ;)
I'm trying to
On Jun 24, 2008, at 1:38 PM, Denis Washington wrote:
Sound like a plan? My primary goals here are two-fold:
1) avoiding disasters if bogus headers start to be added to an rpmdb.
2) exposing rpmdbAdd() (and rpmdbRemove()) methods for use by
LSB/ISV/whatever applications that wish to
On Jun 21, 2008, at 12:48 PM, Denis Washington wrote:
My current interest in your code is disaster prevention, not
otherwise.
I welcome any motive if it improves code quality, so thanks
anyway. ;)
NP. My life is hell when rpmdb's get hosed up. Doesn't matter whether
its a kernel
I think you are looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
For the corner cases of where this does apply (proprietary software)
this is not enough of a use case to justify all the work required.
I don't think this is a corner case at all. For one thing, propietary
applications
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 7:17 PM, Denis Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, 2008-06-21 at 13:01 -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
On Jun 21, 2008, at 12:48 PM, Denis Washington wrote:
On Sat, 2008-06-21 at 12:27 -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
On Jun 21, 2008, at 12:05 PM, Denis Washington
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 7:35 PM, devzero2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 7:17 PM, Denis Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, 2008-06-21 at 13:01 -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
On Jun 21, 2008, at 12:48 PM, Denis Washington wrote:
On Sat, 2008-06-21 at 12:27
On Jun 21, 2008, at 1:52 PM, devzero2000 wrote:
(aside) It is time for LSB RPM SPEC to move to RPM4 packaging format
Indeed. That is the raison d'etre for [EMAIL PROTECTED]. I have not
pursued
because of zero (yes zero!) interest from vendor's or LSB.
Not my problem. I will do a IETF
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 8:19 PM, Jeff Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 21, 2008, at 1:52 PM, devzero2000 wrote:
(aside) It is time for LSB RPM SPEC to move to RPM4 packaging format
Indeed. That is the raison d'etre for [EMAIL PROTECTED]. I have not
pursued
because of zero (yes
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Jeff Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 21, 2008, at 2:45 PM, devzero2000 wrote:
Ok. I already know this and also agreed on the motivation. In the meantime
could be useful
to have more docu on the rpm4 packaging format, almost for the tags. There
is
LSB has chosen to leave upgrade UNSPECIFIED,
and has also chose in the Berlin API to ignore the
fact that both dpkg/rpm versions are a triple of
Epoch/Version/Release.
Pretending that a version string can be anything, opaquely handled,
including E:V-R, or something else, misses the
issue
10 matches
Mail list logo
