Proposal - don't install .rpmnew unless changed

Paul Howarth paul at city-fan.org
Thu Jan 19 16:17:11 UTC 2006


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.




More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list