[Rpm-metadata] metadata future enhancement

[Richard Bos]

Op dinsdag 10 februari 2004 22:16, schreef Jeff Sheltren:
> Sounds just like what yum does - it won't download the packages if
> you've already got them installed/downloaded.  I think this is more of
> an updater/installer feature than a metadata feature, or am I just
> reading this wrong?
>
> -Jeff
>
> On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 12:19, Toshio wrote:
> > Something I think belongs in the metadata level is patch packages.  I'm
> > not as big a proponent of patch packages as I was in 1998 when I was
> > stuck behind a 28K modem though, so I'm not pushing this as a "I think
> > it belongs in metadata now" just that if someone starts hosting patch
> > packages it needs to be integrated at the metadata level so my package
> > tool can automatically find what patch packages are available from the
> > repository metadata, compare them to my cache of local packages, and
> > choose to download accordingly.
> >
> > I don't know of any distribution except SuSE that has a patch package
> > repository yet, though.  So I don't know if this belongs on the radar
> > yet or if it's a "think on it and wait until someone needs the it"
> > feature.
> >
> > -Toshio

Hello,

I just subscribed to the list, maybe I repeat what have been said before, 
apologies in advance for that.  I agree that the metadata should keep 
information whether an rpm is a binary or a patch rpm.  For suse the patch 
rpms are provided in a seperate apt component (ending in prpm like srpm).

Something else: will it be possible that the metadata has a flag to mark an 
rpm as a security update rpm?  A bit related to this, is it possible to 
specify a reason (not the same as the rpm changelog) why the rpms is being 
provided.  E.g. in case of the security update, the package provider may want 
to provide information what security bug is fixed.


-- 
Richard Bos
Without a home the journey is endless