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

Re: [MoM] Packaging fis-get

On 01/29/2012 12:17 PM, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012, Andreas Tille wrote:
I admit I also stumbled about this $HOME/.fis-gtm issue but was to tired
yesterday and forgot to bring this up in my response.


The alternatives system has the purpose to handle different alternative
packages.  However, in the GT.M case there are no such alternatives
currently available in Debian and I do not see a real "danger" that this
wil come soonish.  So for the moment I do not see any need for making
things more complex for no current use.

Wow, what a strange decision. I got a deja vu. Obviously we have a new expert here and my help is not needed anymore.
Sorry Bhaskar, that your previous explanations will be simply ignored ...

[KSB] Actually, this is a good segue into another topic, packages and metapackages. We should have GT.M packages with names like fis-gtm-5.4-002b and a meta package fis-gtm that depends on fis-gtm-5.4-002a or fis-gtm-5.4-002b or fis-gtm-5.5-000. Or perhaps the actual packages will combine a package number with a GT.M release number, e.g., fis-gtm-5.4-002b.01.

The reason is that once we release a GT.M release, it's frozen for all time. Thus, might be ICU 4.2, ICU 4.4, etc., which are different versions of ICU, but each may have a series of releases. But once a GT.M release or version goes out, there will never be another one with the same number. Also, users routinely have multiple GT.M releases or versions installed on their computers, and multiple GT.M releases peacefully co-exist on the same computer.

-- Bhaskar


GT.M - Rock solid. Lightning fast. Secure. No compromises.

The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you.

Reply to: