Guys, I didn't check the code but can imagine that one reason for sorting is to eliminate the double entries. RPMs can be installed twice (in different versions) or in multiple architectures (i386 and x86_64) with the same name. Doing a "| sort | unique" on the names eliminates this. So please have these corener cases in mind.
Regards, Erich On Sunday 21 January 2007 11:37, Bernard Li wrote: > rpm -qa --last > > will list all the RPMs and sort them by install time in descending order. > > Cheers, > > Bernard > > On 1/20/07, DongInn Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Bernard, > > > > I think this is what I have doubted before. I think that the rpm list > > does not really need to be sorted alphabetically but it has been just > > ordered to make the list easy to read. > > BTW, how do we know the install time for the rpms? > > > > Regards, > > > > - DongInn > > > > Bernard Li wrote: > > > Guys: > > > > > > Is there a reason why the pre-oscar RPM list is sorted alphabetically? > > > I find that some times my pre-oscar RPM list will end up having some > > > OSCAR packages and it may be more convenient if the list is sorted by > > > install time such that I can manually update the list so that > > > start_over will work correctly. > > > > > > Anybody oppose me changing how the list is sorted? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Bernard ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Oscar-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oscar-devel
