smart package mgr question?

[Rahul Sundaram]

Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 08:14:28PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> Axel Thimm wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 01:14:35AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> RPM is not designed for downgrades
>>>
>>> One of the core features of rpm from the very beginning was to
>>> downgrades and uninstalls so the user is able to revert from a bad
>>> package.
>> I didnt see any RPM design documents
> 
> Cool, you found rpm design documents?
> 
>> mention downgrades so I am curious where you got this impression
>> from. A few examples,
>>
>> http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/drafts/rpm-guide-en/ch01s02.html
>> http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-intro-to-rpm-rpm-design-goals.html
>>
>> While there are command line arguments that would let RPM perform 
>> downgrades and even ignore dependencies, I wouldnt claim it was designed 
>> for such things.
> 
> Rahul, I don't see what you're trying to get at. It is known that both
> documents have been written after the fact and that maximum rpm
> contains many inaccuracies even though it was the sole documentation
> available for users for several years.

What am I pointing out is that what functionality RPM offers is 
different from what is being designed for.  Example: RPM's ability to 
ignore dependencies. I never heard any RPM developer describe rpm's 
ability to do downgrades as part of its design (quite the opposite) nor 
did I see it being described as such in any RPM guides.

> Furthermore it's also a fact that if a Red Hat/Fedora package is not
> downgradable it is considered a bug. 

Sure but there is no QA being done on this and has higher chances of 
bugs than upgrades. Rollback is much more harder to implement correctly 
than upgrades. So I would advise caution when doing either. I am out.

Rahul