> I think the question here is even greater: Do we really need a daemon?
Good question, and I think my answer is: no. Or at least not initially. I think the whole situation is severely upside down (belly up?). Cranking up megapackage just for checking for updates? No. Here's the pyramid how it should be, time-honoured Unix way: 1) rpm for package installation 2) Some quick, fast, lean, command line program which can take a list of repositories, and which can resolve dependencies and install + remove packages. Dependencies: rpm, data path to the repositories. Hint: C. Anti-hints: C#, mono, java. 3) Some ncurses program with a user interface, which allows user to select repositories and search for packages, etc. Scrap this if there aren't resources for this. Dependencies: 2). 4) Same as 3), but with qt. Dependencies: 2). Whether 2) is a library which is used by a command-line front-end and 3) and 4), or a command line program which may or may not be called rug, y2pmsh or something altogether different, is not really of importance. Whatever is easier to implement + maintain. 5) Some little tray app similar to susewatcher. 6) Some thing which allows remote maintenance, Zen-Whatnot, whatever. To be activated by installing respective package, and rcallbasesbelongtosomewhereelse start. Dependencies: 2). I also find these issues important: * Use delta rpms. Superb technology, why throw it out the window? * Updates which have been downloaded need to be put together as a new installation source, integrated in 2) or 4), or in something on the same level as 2). Downloading everything again for each box in the house is insane. It is also paramount that updates can be carted over sneakernet to those boxes without above average network connection, i.e. dialup. * Downloading >10MB of gziped repodata just to check what changed today is not really acceptable, and a killer for dialup. This also emphasizes the previous point. * Processes called *.exe look downright nauseating. It's silly to use too much extension for executables, the approach "it's called .xyz so it must be..." has caused Microsoft no end of grief. .exe has an unbreakable association with bad design and trouble. Why do open source developers have to be indistuinguishable to mswindows? If I wanted that, I'd run it. At the very least, couldn't they call it .mono if they really thought they couldn't do better? Volker -- Volker Kuhlmann is list0570 with the domain in header http://volker.dnsalias.net/ Please do not CC list postings to me. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
