[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Patches vs. Packages
From: |
Christian Pearce |
Subject: |
Re: Patches vs. Packages |
Date: |
Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:54:32 -0500 |
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 <architect@webalive.biz> 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