On Fri, 15 May 1998 11:04:55 -0500 (CDT), Nathan E Norman wrote:
>But isn't that the point of a packaging system? This way, bug-fixes,
>security fixes, etc. are integrated into the system simply by running
>dselect every now and then. deselect *does* present you with a list of
>what it's going to update (or more correctly, updated packages).
Right, and the person should *CHOOSE* which packages are to be updated.
This automatatic unless otherwise specified path reaks of Microsoft.
>If you want everything on hold, then place everything on hold :)
That is not feesable for 2-300 packages.
>I'm not trying to be flippant, but you still haven't listed a specific
>example of where the default behavior is wrong, so I'm not sure where
>you're coming from.
Yes, I have. Placing unstable directories into the path to keep up with
current versions of applications while not having to worry about other things
being updated. IE, having the *OPTION* to choose to upgrade, not to upgrade
outright.
--
Steve C. Lamb | Opinions expressed by me are not my
http://www.calweb.com/~morpheus | employer's. They hired me for my
ICQ: 5107343 | skills and labor, not my opinions!
---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
