On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 01:22:54AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 06:45:13AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > > On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 07:10:53PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > > > I don't see how a woody that is known to contain file conflicts and that > > > has force-overwrite turned off is any better at all then one with them > > > turned on. > > Because it will screw things up later? > > Not doing it'll screw things up immediately. We've always had a policy of > enably --force-overwrites in stable releases. Why? > > (If we really don't care about > > file conflicts, why are we doing this packaging thing at all?) > > *We* care about them. We don't like forcing users who'd rather not worry > to have to care about them, however. So it's better for the user to get an inderminate file? File conflicts are always serious bugs (nothing to do with bts) that could very easily break something. This gets worse as we encourage people to use third-party apt sources; if force-overwrite is turned on it's trivial to accidentally screw things up. When is it not good to alert the user to a potenially disastrous, abnormal situation? -- Mike Stone
Attachment:
pgpQfexwSPWCl.pgp
Description: PGP signature