On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 03:42:26PM -0400, Bowie Bailey wrote: > They are both good. RDJ was made to deal with third party rulesets > and it does a good job. sa-update was made to deal with official > ruleset updates and has been extended to also handle third party > rulesets.
That's not exactly true. sa-update was written to deal with rulesets, one of which is the official ruleset. There happen to be a few hardcoded in entries for the official ruleset (default channel, GPG key, etc,) but it's a generic tool. FWIW, it happens to be the "official" tool since no one ever submitted RDJ to be the official tool, so we had to write our own. > sa-update has the advantage of also updating the official rules. The > downside is that you have to create channels for new rulesets, so it > isn't quite as simple as creating the ruleset and making it available > on the web. Channels have several upsides, such as using DNS to specify the latest version. So an "am I up to date" query is a really really cheap operation (DNS query) as opposed to having to connect to a web server and going through the whole thing (even a IMS GET is relatively heavy in comparison to the channel version). So yes, channels make publishing a little more involved than slapping a file on a website. On the flip side, channels give a number of benefits above the "file on website" method (support for multiple cf/pre files, cheap version queries, mirrors for update files, sha1 and gpg checksums, etc, etc). -- Randomly Selected Tagline: "Why is there only one quote? Because the whiteboard doesn't do syntax checking." - Prof. Finkel
pgpfYJUp72yxw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
