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

Re: Bug#32595: remove obsolete and confusing acquisition methods: harddisk, mounted, cdrom, nfs

On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Enrique Zanardi wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 31, 1999 at 02:21:38AM +1100, Martin Mitchell wrote:
> > Enrique Zanardi <ezanardi@ull.es> writes:
> > 
> > > What about dpkg-multicd?
> > 
> > I have no objection to cdrom being replaced with dpkg-multicd.
> But dpkg-multicd is more than multiple-cds. There's multi-nfs,
> multi-mount, ... that replace nfs, mounted, ... 
> That's why we think dpkg default methods can be removed/extracted to a
> different package.

I still use nfs or mounted (I have /sunsite always pointing to sunsite,
which is where I get my packages from) and dselect. It's always worked
fine for me, so I feel no need to change.
> > > If you still need dpkg default methods, a proper solution would be to
> > > extract them to a different package (say, dpkg-defaults), make dpkt-ftp,
> > > dpkg-mountable, dpkg-multicd, dpkg-defaults, apt ... provide a virtual
> > > package "dpkg-method" and make dpkg depend on dpkg-method.

So then I have to download a bunch of packages if I want to grab a package
of my CD, or use nfs, or ftp for when I want something from incoming....
> > I don't call the 6 options currently in my dselect's access menu crowded,
> > I'd say it was flexible.
> If some of those options don't work, some are duplicated, and there's no
> way to get rid of them, that's crowded.

The ones that don't work should be removed, but there should be backwards
compatibility in the interface (i.e. people who have used
cd/ftp/nfs/mounted depending on circumstances should be able to use all of
these as the need takes them without having to install loads of packages)

YMMV though,


Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo

Steward of the Cambridge Tolkien Society
Selwyn College Computer Support

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-testing-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: