[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Deleting uncompressed Info/Doc files at upgrades

Manoj Srivastava wrote:

>  Chris> In the case of compressed vs. uncompressed files, dpkg is
>  Chris> already capable of this.  Just move the files in question to a
>  Chris> separate package, provide two versions of the package, with and
>  Chris> without compression, and voila!

>         So you want to double the number of packages there are

No, I don't -- I *said* it was infeasible.  Just not impossible.  You
said the system shouldn't be *allowed* to do that, I was pointing out
that it already *is* allowed to do that!  It just doesn't do it very

Let's get one thing straight:  if there were a vote on this today, I
would vote with you.  All the mechanisms proposed so far are badly
flawed, IMO.  And I don't have a better proposal.  But I don't think the
idea is *morally* flawed.  I merely think the proposed implementations
are technically flawed.

What I was suggesting was that we look for more basic underlying issues.
Rather than focusing on the specific case of compressed vs. uncompressed
documentation, we should look at the basic concept of files that can
appear in different forms with different names.  We already handle this
at the gross inter-package level, but it might be nice to have a
mechanism that can handle this within a package.

In fact, we already solved this problem once, with emacs add-ons.  I'm
not sure that solution was general enough, though.  But I think it may
be the right direction to look for starters.
Chris Waters   xtifr@dsp.net | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or   cwaters@systems.DHL.COM | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr     | this .signature file.

Reply to: