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

Re: And now for something completely different... etch!

Petri Latvala wrote:
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 11:40:55AM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:

The ability to have multiple versions of a package installed at the same

(Sorry Olaf, for getting this twice, my fingers work too fast)

No, dear $DEITY. This "feature" is the major thing I hate about
rpms. It's so easy to get wrong and install a package's new version
side-by-side when you meant to update the old one. And don't say "just
be careful" when there are people in the world who are not seasoned
sysadmin veterans who audit every init.d script and whatnot.

Making installing another version on the side as a
--force-this-I-really-want-to-kick-myself option would not be as bad,
but still as bad. This just won't work. Both versions supply
$PATH/$FILE, and then what?

Supporting side-by-side file installation isn't (that) simple. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be useful. A mechanism would be needed to specify which version of an application should be run. Should this be system-wide, per-user, per-environment?

1) divert the other? what's the use of another package version then

That depends on system-wide vs per-user vs per-environment.

2) install to another dir / another name of the file? Again, what's
the use

3) this is a library so it only has a .so file with another soname so
no name clashes. Hey, oops, different library soname already means a
different package (this, I think, is the reason why rpm supports
multiple versions)

Does it?
I thought minor updates didn't change soname?

Reply to: