SUN's patches are a set of packages. It also has it's own systems to handling the version etc... Annoying if you ask me.
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 16:57 -0800, David Masterson wrote: > Patches seem to come in two flavors: > > 1. Packaged patches -- some vendors roll up (sets of) patches into a package > that the package manager can deal with. > > 2. Simple patches -- (sets of) files that a vendor deems has to get out now > for some bug -- the vendor may or may not have time to "package"-ize it, but > will merely document it. > > Obviously, therefore, the form of patches can be as varied as packages (or > even more than!). Every vendor has his own favorite ways -- from simple > tarballs of files to shell/Perl scripts to real packages. > > David Masterson > Symbol Technologies > > >>> Tim Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 03/17/05 03:34PM >>> > Hi all. My system doesn't have to deal with patches (being a > Linux system and all), but I was wondering if it would be effective to > treat patches as a type of package. > > Common features (guessing here): > - Install, Upgrade, Remove, and Checkversion are the main actions > - Both have dependencies > - > > Would it be reasonable to treat patches as a case of packages? > Can I have some input from someone who knows about patches? (Chip? :) ). > > :) > -- Christian Pearce http://www.sysnav.com http://www.commnav.com http://www.perfectorder.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Help-cfengine mailing list Help-cfengine@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-cfengine
