Re: concurrent installation of different pkg versions
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 26/04/14 07:11, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 02:07:22PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> Le Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 11:41:17AM +0800, Paul Wise a ￩crit :
>>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>>>> a generalized approach is needed.
>
>>> Multiple versions of a package seems undesirable to me, for the
>>> same reasons as static libraries and embedded code copies are
>>> undesirable.
>
>> Hi Paul and everybody,
>
>> it would be a great advantage for Debian over the other
>> distributions to have the capacity to install multiple versions
>> concurrently.
>
> No, no it wouldn't.
>
> This is how rpm handles library packages. It's a horror show.
>
There is a difference between doing this for "core" packages (e.g. C
libraries, system daemons, things that are sensitive to something in
/etc) and these independent eco-systems that exist around Python,
Java, JavaScript, etc.
Letting people install arbitrary versions of Python and then expect
all the Python scripts in a stable system to just work feels unreasonable.
However, letting them install additional versions of the Python
interpreter or some Python libraries that can be used on-demand, while
not impacting the default that is used would be less demanding on
Debian to support. The same can be said for Java and JavaScript and
other things.
With JavaScript, the problem is particularly acute because the APIs
are more volatile. It is harder to force all web packages to use a
single version of jQuery (or something else) if each upstream uses a
different version. Debian either ends up dropping a lot of these web
packages or demanding that DDs who want to upload such things jump
through more hoops to patch their packages.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/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=gLWq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: