> >>I'd really like a way to handle upgrades. Or at least know when an > >>upgrade is possible and when not. > > > > i've been considering this issue over the past several days- it's very > > important. i'm starting to realise that upgrades from the 0.5 branch to > > 0.6 and greater are really difficult to do right, largely because a lot > > of configuration information was moved from the server-side > > configuration file to the terminal-side configuration file. but maybe > > it's not as bad as i think. > > > > i think 0.6 was smart in moving more into the terminal, as upgrades from > > 0.6 to future versions will be much easier to handle correctly, and > > makes the server-side and chroot-side versions of packages less > > inter-dependent on similar versions (my eventual goal will be to have no > > inter-dependencies on particular versions, and i think current cvs is > > much closer to that goal). > > Sounds good (and sounds like it is worth the wait not releasing 0.6 for > Debian at all).
actually, it would have made upgrading to newer versions much easier had 0.6 gotten into sarge. but alas- the package in sarge is good enough for a lot of things- we should have some time to figure out how to properly handle upgrades from the the version in sarge. :) live well, vagrant
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
