-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Il giorno 25/apr/06, alle ore 13:57, Sven Mueller ha scritto:
Luigi Gangitano wrote on 25/04/2006 01:32:So I'm packaging Squid-3.0 from new sources (using CDBS for the first time, great!). The resulting packages will be named 'squid3, squid3- common, squid3-client, squid3-cgi' and will conflict with the existing squid packages.Why do you conflict? Would squid3 require such big changes to make it installable side-by-side with the squid 2.5 packages? Wouldn't it make sense to allow as many people as possible to test it with their production squid (2.5) still available?
Whould you really use your production machine to test some experimental software?
Note that I do realize that you would need to revert any such changes once squid3 becomes stable (and a possible upgrade from 2.5). I'm just wondering wether the changes were so big that this is infeasible.
Changes are not that big. But since squid 2.5 would still be available and reverting to it is a simple 'uninstall squid3 and reinstall squid' operation that doesn't impact configuration files and the caches, I don't see why it's needed to keep them separated.
Regards, - -- Luigi Gangitano -- <luigi@debian.org> -- <gangitano@lugroma3.org> GPG: 1024D/924C0C26: 12F8 9C03 89D3 DB4A 9972 C24A F19B A618 924C 0C26 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) iD8DBQFEThPE8ZumGJJMDCYRAjvoAJ0UJzsVMAokAz6FYsjEZmgnZkcRgwCcC943 DIJtm38f7s7N3rLa+ZcxoYQ= =5y9D -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----