Yum deltarpm

[Ahmed Kamal]

It seems suse uses "_" as a separator, and will mention the version once if
it is the same across the 2 rpms. For example
kernel-xenpae-2.6.16.13_2.6.16.21-4_0.21.i586.delta.rpm<ftp://ftp.cs.pu.edu.tw/pub2/SuSE/suse/update/10.1/rpm/i586/kernel-xenpae-2.6.16.13_2.6.16.21-4_0.21.i586.delta.rpm>
That would be name-verOld_verNew-relOld_relNew.arch.delta.rpm
and libextractor-0.5.10-12_12.2.i586.delta.rpm<ftp://ftp.cs.pu.edu.tw/pub2/SuSE/suse/update/10.1/rpm/i586/libextractor-0.5.10-12_12.2.i586.delta.rpm>shows
using a single version number


On 2/3/07, Ahmed Kamal <email.ahmedkamal at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> AFAIK, suse does use .delta.rpm as can be found here
> http://www.filewatcher.com/b/ftp/ftp.cs.pu.edu.tw/pub2/SuSE/suse/update/10.1/rpm/i586.0.0.html
>
>
> Tried to guess their naming convention, it seems something like
> "newVer_oldVer-release", not sure why there is a single release, and it's
> not even consistent. I'm trying to lookup some info on their naming
> convention.
>
> On 2/3/07, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 19:32 +0200, Ahmed Kamal wrote:
> > > One tiny thing I am facing is the naming convention to be used for the
> > > resulting drpms. This name needs to reflect both versions for which
> > > this delta was made. I am thinking I need to use something like:
> > > " name-VerNew-RelNew-VerOld-RelOld.arch.drpm"
> > > Not sure if this would cause any issues, I mean not using the standard
> > > rpm naming scheme. But then again, this is not a rpm, which is why I
> > > chose suffix .drpm instead of say .delta.rpm
> > > Let me know what you guys think
> > >
> > What does SuSE use when they generate delata-rpms?  (I do like drpm
> > better than delta.rpm).
> >
> > -Toshio
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20070203/3614473e/attachment.html