Re: RFC: Idea for improved diversions and alternatives handling
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:05:53PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes ("Re: RFC: Idea for improved diversions and alternatives handling"):
> > Declarative diversions are a much-needed enhancement to dpkg; there are
> > cases one cannot deal with on upgrade without rm'ing one's own package files
> > in the prerm in order to handle diversion changes, and that's just nasty.
> > I'm happy to see people thinking about this.
> Absolutely. I would agree with Steve Langasek's comments, though.
> I don't think replicating the options to dpkg-divert in the diversions
> file is the correct approach. The implementation won't be done by
> having dpkg call dpkg-divert (I hope!) and I think a less arbitrary
> set of syntaxes for the diversions file would be better.
> Looking at the options to dpkg-divert:
> --add --remove --package
> Should be inferred by dpkg and not specifiable in diversions
> In practice diversity in this option seems to cause more
> trouble than it's worse. Perhaps we should settle on
> `.diverted' or something ?
What should happen when several packages divert the same file ?
Which one wins ? What about original files, what do they become ?