Re: (-) Sorry, your distribution type is unsupported.

On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 08:05:31PM -0700, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
> Por favor, and si vous plait, keep the FUD on MS mailing lists.

Things you don't agree with / don't understand != FUD.

> There has been communication about the changes from RPM 3 to RPM 4, and
> there seems to be pretty decent documentation of the rpmlib API (IANAH, so I
> can't say for sure).  There is only one distribution using RPM 4, while many
> are using RPM 3.  They did not BREAK any software, they simply made it
> incompatible.  If you want to use the old software on RH7, you've got 2
> options.  First, update the software to be able to use the new API.  Second,
> downgrade the version of RPM on RH7 to v3, and use the old software.  Later,
> 	Greg

Please, do tell, where is this documentation?

Is it in the Maximum RPM book we have purchased?  No, wait, that
documentation is for RPM 2.5.

Is it at  Again, that documentation is for RPM 2.5,
except for a few code snippets ported to the RPM 3.0.x API.

Wait, that's right, most of the 3.0.x releases managed to be subtly
incompatible, so those examples probably won't help you at all.

So I guess the next step is to look at the RPM headers.  Except that
those actually misdocument RPM in places.  Try again.

Please, I personally know any number of people who would love some
accurate and current RPM documentation.

I do agree with you that Mathieu came down a little hard on the
Red Hat people; it's their software to change, and their changes
make sense to me, and they've been nothing but helpful when I've
talked to them with RPM questions.  But I am a hacker, and your
statements about docs are just plain wrong.

Ian Peters
itp helixcode com

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]