Re: version 0.15 of autoupgrade script
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> > - made the script use --force-overwrite because @^@%@$!^@&^#$ dpkg 1.4.0.20
> > doesn't do it by default anymore. this also pisses me off.
>
> Why is the --force-overwrite necessary? What files are overwritten? In
> what "old" and "new" packages are they? Ik think this ought to be fixed
> before hamm is released, if at all possible, so that the --force-overwrite
> is not needed in the script.
I can't recall exactly which what gets overwritten. i should have taken
notes last time i ran it but i didn't. i'll be building a new machine
tomorrow at work so i'll take notes when i get up to upgrading it to hamm.
i'll post a report tomorrow night.
force-overwrite works. i fail to see why some people dislike it so much.
yes, there are problems in some packages (sometimes caused by single
packages being split into two or more packages). --force-oerwrite gets
around that problem and makes a dselect install/upgrade go smoothly for
the user. it hasn't caused any problems (at least none that i know of)
since it was made the default...and i've upgraded dozens of machines
dozens of times each with dselect.
IMO, that is more "correct" behaviour than forcing the user to manually
install some packages with dpkg --force-overwrite when dselect is
perfectly capable of handling the situation properly without manual
intervention.
what all this means is that i am not at all keen to remove --force-overwrite
from the script. i want my script to work, even if that means it isn't
100% politically correct.
craig
--
craig sanders
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: