| Author |
Message |
Uli Link
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 02 Mar 2005
Posts: 100
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2005 12:26 am Post subject:
Re: installp vs. rpm?
|
|
|
Mike wrote:
| Quote: | That's what I'm working on now. As I mentioned I wanted to
keep the two systems logically separate,..´
|
This can be managed by a separate tree under /opt e.g.
| Quote: | I have used the mklpp in the past, but it seems like I
always had to create the installation area (where it creates
the bff from) as owned by root. Was I missing something
or is that the way it is? I've been trying to get the time
to test creating the package then having a post install
script that changes the ownership to root.
|
Not really.
You can specify owner, group and mode together with chksum and some
other items independantly for every file in you installp through the
*.inventory control file(s). Installp format can handle separate root,
usr and share parts.
Any package creation script can only do a rough guess from the staging
area. And usually a package can only be tested with root privilege,
regardless of the format.
My favourite is the SVR4 package format. But I would never even think of
mixing installp, rpm and pkg on one platform, and haven't met a pkg
for AIX yet.
--
Uli
These opinions are mine. All found typos are yours. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mike
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 133
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 9:58 pm Post subject:
Re: installp vs. rpm?
|
|
|
In article <4203f616$0$18564$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net>, Uli Link wrote:
| Quote: |
Possibly dpkg is superior, I've not used it.
Since there are two package managers by default in AIX,
it made sense in my environment to use installp for IBM
provided packages and rpm for everything else.
Why not building installp's and stay consistent on AIX?
It's a nice format and well documented.
|
That's what I'm working on now. As I mentioned I wanted to
keep the two systems logically separate, and then realized
there was no 'reject' in rpm and I use that a lot with
installp (depending on the situation).
I have used the mklpp in the past, but it seems like I
always had to create the installation area (where it creates
the bff from) as owned by root. Was I missing something
or is that the way it is? I've been trying to get the time
to test creating the package then having a post install
script that changes the ownership to root.
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Uli Link
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 02 Mar 2005
Posts: 100
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 9:24 pm Post subject:
Re: installp vs. rpm?
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Possibly dpkg is superior, I've not used it.
Since there are two package managers by default in AIX,
it made sense in my environment to use installp for IBM
provided packages and rpm for everything else.
|
Why not building installp's and stay consistent on AIX?
It's a nice format and well documented.
--
Uli
These opinions are mine. All found typos are yours. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 133
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:57 pm Post subject:
Re: installp vs. rpm?
|
|
|
In article <1107551441.044017.208540@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, florian.heigl@gmx.de wrote:
| Quote: |
Mike wrote:
I have decided to use RPM for everything home-grown and
use installp for OS and vendor provided things. Then I
think earlier this week about an issue one of the development
groups had earlier this week where they needed to back
something out of production.
I know installp can backout (reject) filesets that have
not yet been committed, but how to handle this with rpm?
rpm is just a package format, and IMHO not one of the better
ones. I've used it quite some time and i've yet to see even
a mechanism like commiting software with rpm.
please use things for what they were intended for, not for
everything. rpm is great for quickly installing a singly
binary, especially if You don't know every geninstall
parameter by heart (or almost none like me), but it's
not the way to distribute real software.
Guess why linux people consider dpkg as superior?
|
Possibly dpkg is superior, I've not used it.
Since there are two package managers by default in AIX,
it made sense in my environment to use installp for IBM
provided packages and rpm for everything else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
florian.heigl@gmx.de
*nix forums beginner
Joined: 04 Feb 2005
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:10 pm Post subject:
Re: installp vs. rpm?
|
|
|
Mike wrote:
| Quote: | I have decided to use RPM for everything home-grown and
use installp for OS and vendor provided things. Then I
think earlier this week about an issue one of the development
groups had earlier this week where they needed to back
something out of production.
I know installp can backout (reject) filesets that have
not yet been committed, but how to handle this with rpm?
|
rpm is just a package format, and IMHO not one of the better
ones. I've used it quite some time and i've yet to see even
a mechanism like commiting software with rpm.
please use things for what they were intended for, not for
everything. rpm is great for quickly installing a singly
binary, especially if You don't know every geninstall
parameter by heart (or almost none like me), but it's
not the way to distribute real software.
Guess why linux people consider dpkg as superior? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TomK
*nix forums beginner
Joined: 09 Mar 2005
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 7:39 am Post subject:
Re: installp vs. rpm?
|
|
|
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 16:12:06 GMT, Mike <mikee@mikee.ath.cx> wrote:
| Quote: | In article <1107442043.892156.248120@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Greg Beeker wrote:
man rpm
rpm [--uninstall|-e] [uninstalloptions] [package]+
Thank you for mentioning the uninstall. I thought the uninstall
would totally remove the application from the system. When I use
'installp -a' I can subsequently use 'installp -r' to return
to the previous fileset, thereby rejecting the fileset just
installed as long as the fileset has not been commited.
It is the reject ability I am trying to confirm that rpm
does or does not have. So far it appears that rpm is not
able to reject packages; only uninstall them.
Mike
In order to reject, rpm would need the option to not commit. If you look |
around, you'll find that installp saves the previous version in (fudging
here -- doing this from home) the /usr/lpp/<package> directory; when you
commit, the subdirectory is deleted.
Rpm doesn't have the option to save the old version built in; but you
could always do a pre- script to save previous if found, and (possibly) a
post- script to re-install the saved version on an uninstall.
Tom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 133
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 3:12 pm Post subject:
Re: installp vs. rpm?
|
|
|
In article <1107442043.892156.248120@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Greg Beeker wrote:
| Quote: | man rpm
rpm [--uninstall|-e] [uninstalloptions] [package]+
|
Thank you for mentioning the uninstall. I thought the uninstall
would totally remove the application from the system. When I use
'installp -a' I can subsequently use 'installp -r' to return
to the previous fileset, thereby rejecting the fileset just
installed as long as the fileset has not been commited.
It is the reject ability I am trying to confirm that rpm
does or does not have. So far it appears that rpm is not
able to reject packages; only uninstall them.
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greg Beeker
*nix forums addict
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 94
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 1:47 pm Post subject:
Re: installp vs. rpm?
|
|
|
man rpm
rpm [--uninstall|-e] [uninstalloptions] [package]+ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael Prix
*nix forums beginner
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 18
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 7:06 pm Post subject:
Re: installp vs. rpm?
|
|
|
Mike wrote:
| Quote: | I know installp can backout (reject) filesets that have
not yet been committed, but how to handle this with rpm?
Mike
|
root@aix02:/# rpm
RPM version 3.0.5
Copyright (C) 1998 - Red Hat Software
This may be freely redistributed under the terms of the GNU GPL
usage: ...
HTH, HAND
--
Michael Prix
The social dynamics of the net are a direct consequence of the fact that
nobody has yet developed a Remote Strangulation Protocol. -- Larry
Wall |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 133
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 5:51 pm Post subject:
installp vs. rpm?
|
|
|
I have decided to use RPM for everything home-grown and
use installp for OS and vendor provided things. Then I
think earlier this week about an issue one of the development
groups had earlier this week where they needed to back
something out of production.
I know installp can backout (reject) filesets that have
not yet been committed, but how to handle this with rpm?
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
*nix
»
AIX
