Proposal - don't install .rpmnew unless changed

[Rudolf Kastl]

2006/1/19, Paul Howarth <paul at city-fan.org>:
> Neal Becker wrote:
> > Paul Howarth wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Neal Becker wrote:
> >>
> >>>Paul Howarth wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Neal Becker wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Paul Howarth wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Neal Becker wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>It would save admins a lot of time if we modify rpm so that it does
> >>>>>>>not
> >>>>>>>create a .rpmnew file if there is no change from the old file.  I
> >>>>>>>would think this would be a simple modification.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>It already does this, doesn't it?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I don't think so!  I keep syncing with develop every day, and most days
> >>>>>I get a bunch of messages about "blah created as .rpmnew", and every day
> >>>>>I run diff, and almost always get no output.
> >>>>
> >>>>Are you on an x86_64 box with lots of parallel-installed i386 packages?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Yes, x86_64.  I have most parallel i386 packages that are standard on
> >>>x86_64.  I did not install extra i386 packages.
> >>>
> >>>Today, for example, there were a bunch of messages about upgrade to
> >>>kdelibs-3.5.0-5.  It does happen that there are both x86_64 and i386
> >>>versions of this, do you think this is the explanation?  In any case, any
> >>>chance to fix it?
> >>
> >>I think it's the same issue (multiple packages owning the same config
> >>file) as for /etc/vimrc, except in this case it's different-arch
> >>packages instead of different-name packages.
> >>
> >>I don't know what the *right* policy for these cases should be really.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Isn't it "right" to not create .rpmnew and report it to the user if there is
> > no diff to the current version?
>
> What *is* the current version though, if there are multiple packages
> owning the same file?
>
> I don't know enough about rpm internals to say why this is a problem.
>
> Paul.
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>

if multible packages own the same files its a packaging bug.

regards,
Rudolf Kastl