Re: [platform-update-dev] Update and RPM

[Tom Tromey <tromey@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>>>>> "PM" == Peter Manahan <manahan@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

PM> I have been looking at this stuff for some months so I added some
PM> comments. hope it helps

Thanks.

PM> The tone of your note seems to be assuming that you will be
PM> providing the RPM's all eclipse users will be using. This isn't
PM> the case.  Each "product" will still have to write thier own rpm.
PM> However a default one for eclipse would be nice.

When you say "product", do you mean that if some company decides to
re-brand Eclipse and ship it, then they will need their own RPM?  That
makes sense.

Right now I'm only concerned about the Eclipse we want to ship.  What
we'd like to do is package the base Eclipse (i.e., the stuff in the
recent 2.0 release) and the CDT.  Our requirements are basically that
it work like any other RPM package.

[ ... ]
PM> Its a windows "example". The standard manner for windows is
PM> different than the standard manner for Linux.

That explains a lot.  The online document doesn't mention that those
are examples, let alone that they are windows-specific.  I read them
as being general requirements.

PM> RPM's dependency checking isn't good enough (in fact no install
PM> program's dependency checking is good enough).

That's unfortunate.  What do you suggest we do?  I mean, given that we
have to use RPM.

Tom> One idea I have is to write a tool to take an Eclipse package and
Tom> turn it into an RPM.  I don't know enough yet to say whether this
Tom> is really possible (or desirable, for that matter).

PM> Its possible to do this and it is desirable in to have one. As you
PM> mention below you need create a new feature type.

I'm confused; I don't know how to reconcile this statement with the
one above that says that RPM's dependency checking isn't good enough.

Tom