On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 10:53:14PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 07:26:50AM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote: > > > The Debian packaging system only understands progress and not > > > necissarily the ramifications of such. This could very easily be > > > fixed and allow for multiple versions of the same package in a > > > particular tree if the packaging tools would ask the user which > > > version they meant, and whichever version the packager recommends > > > using could be the default option. All this would take is adding > > > a single, optional flag for "default version." > > > > I'm not convinced that this alone would be enough. It may work > > well, provided there are only 2 versions of the package, but what > > happens when/if a third is needed for some reason? > > You'd have to give an example of why it wouldn't work with more > packages...
Assuming that the "default" option was instituted, any packages without this indication would be on even footing WRT what constitutes and upgrade, right? It is possible then that to non-default versions of a package that are not upgrade compatible (configuration files changes or otherwise). This would bring us back to the original problem. Perhaps I'm simply mistaken, but I don't believe the "default" method would scale. From what I can see, it would only address one instance of package upgrade incompatibility. If another occurred before the "default" changed, I believe it would break. -- Jamin W. Collins -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
