Re: New dpkg overwrite behaviour undesirable
andrew@toaster.it.com.au (Andrew Howell) wrote on 01.04.96 in <[🔎] m0u3fWY-0005ljC@toaster.it.com.au>:
> Kai Henningsen writes:
> >
> > andrew@toaster.it.com.au (Andrew Howell) wrote on 31.03.96 in
> > <m0u3Lcb-0005ljC@toaster.it.com.au>:
> >
> > > Kai Henningsen writes:
> >
> > > > If a new package wants to overwrite files of an old package, it
> > > > usually has a reason to. Simply dropping the new file is almost always
> > > > wrong. Simply overwriting (the old behaviour) isn't good, but is
> > > > certainly better than dropping.
> > >
> > > I disagree, this with proper use of Replaces and Conflicts this
> > > shouldn't be a problem.
> >
> > That way, you may keep the conflict from happening. If it happens, it's
> > still the wrong solution to drop the new file.
>
> I don't understand what your saying.
That's obvious :-(
Once again, you read something in my mail that I didn't write.
> I don't understand what your saying. Course your going to stop the conflict
> from happening you have Conflicts: fields, that's what they are for :)
> Why is it the wrong solution? If the file is to be installed it should
I never said that's wrong.
I said that it is wrong to drop a new file in favour of an old file.
[eliminating the conflict case]
> What is the problem with doing this?
Nothing, IMHO, and I never said otherwise.
> > If you disagree that dropping the new file is wrong, please explain why.
>
> Because I think it's inherently bad for a file to be replaced by another
> package without any prior warning. The whole point of this new behaviour
I certainly did not advocate doing anything without a warning. I said it's
wrong to drop the new file; if you have to drop one, either ask, or drop
the old one.
MfG Kai
Reply to: