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

Re: RFC: Idea for improved diversions and alternatives handling

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 07:34:53PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> James Vega writes ("Re: RFC: Idea for improved diversions and alternatives handling"):
> > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 06:40:23PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > What should happen when several packages divert the same file ?
> > > Which one wins ? What about original files, what do they become ?
> > 
> > Several packages shouldn't divert the same file, IMO.  diversions
> > are useful for specific circumstances and the diverted/diverting
> > packages should be closely related (if not from the source).
> > Alternatives are the better solution when there are myriad,
> > non-conflicting sources which may provide the same file.
> That's all very well but what about transitions ?

This would fall under closely related packages.  My point was mainly
that diversions need to be thought out and coordinated before being
used as they have more restrictions than alternatives (such as not
supporting multiple packages providing a file that another package
declared a diversion for).

> This all needs some careful thought I think, to make sure we get all
> of the corner cases right.

Agreed.  Getting this implemented correctly will be very useful to
those situations where diversions are the right solution.

GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega <jamessan@debian.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: