help-cfengine
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]