[Fwd: An idea for tracking software install...]
"Michael H. Voase" wrote:
Sorry, me response went to the wrong destination.
> Dan Kegel wrote:
> > "Michael H. Voase" wrote:
> > > In me travels around the *nix world I have noticed the little
> > > install program that is often used to deploy software from a build tree.
> > > Common practice it seems. Now what if a small mod was made so that it
> > > logged the installs to a flat file database for later perusal, and
> > > politely ask developers to refrain from using cp to install software
> > > from a source tree. That way, a user can refer back to the install logs
> > > to identify what has been loaded into a system...
> > In other words, add hooks to the RPM database into the 'install' utility?
> > I suppose. You'd need a new option to 'install' to specify what package
> > the file belongs to. What about dependencies, though? Do you want
> > to deal with them?
> No, not in the context of logging from install. If
> anything, the behaviour of install would have to be identical
> to its original behavior. Afterall, you would want the source
> package to do the same thing wether its on a linux system or
> not. Any logging would have to be transparent to the
> programmer, Otherwise installs on other systems such as *BSD
> or any other *nix would break.
> However, this concept wouldnt necesarilly be linux
> specific, I feel sure if it were added in, it would soon osmoze
> to the other unix systems ( esp if it proved to be useful ).
> Lastly, all Im really interested in here is to catch
> and log those installs that seems to fly underneath rpm's radar
> ( and most package managers really ). AFAIC sometimes rpm can be
> a real PITA, cause it assumes it knows more about my system than
> I do, and that is not the case. If rpm treated
> the dependency info as advisory, rather than law, then I would
> feel a lot more comfortable using it. I dont mind it telling
> me that dep info for x,y and z has failed, its prolly quite
> right too. But that doesnt mean the reqiured software isnt
> on my system. Also I dont mind rpm telling me that removing
> package x will break dependency on y and z. That may be true too,
> but it cant know if Im about to install a replacement for it. If
> it just did as it were told and not try to second guess me, I
> ( and prolly a lot of other people out there ) would be
> a lot happier with it.
> Hence why I wouldnt really be worried about logging
> depedency info about a given package. Dep info is a great indicator,
> and is useful information, but it defitely is not law. Just knowing
> what is going into my box would be a good start.
> Cheers Mik.
> > - Dan
> > --
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> > with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email firstname.lastname@example.org
> Open Software - The Search for the truth and the right to speak it.
Open Software - The Search for the truth and the right to speak it.