On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:26:38 -0600
Jamin Collins <jcollins@asgardsrealm.net> wrote:
> No it's not. Version number indicate a progression of an application,
> they have no indication of "major differences between two releases".
> Just because a package moves from 1.x to 2.x or 3.x gives no indication
> of any major changes. They are just version numbers.
But they do indicate change and part of that change can be incompatibility
which is often, but not always, denoted by a change in the major number.
> > A possibility would be to have the epoc denote different packages.
> > Not have the packaging system update from one epoc to the next and
> > actively list different epocs in the package list.
> This could/would cause serious breakage with the existing package pool.
> In short, not a good idea.
Why? It would be an alteration, not a serious breakage. The only
difference is that now we don't automatically upgrade on a larger epoc. We
just consider them different.
> > You could care less which means you have some caring? I don't think
> > that is what you meant to say.
> I could be wrong here, but my understanding of that phrase has always
> been more of a "lack of caring". I'm not concerned specifically with
> exim and whether or not v4 is included, but rather that the reasons for
> it (or any other package) not being included are sound.
The phrase is "couldn't care less" as in one is incapable of less caring.
Could care less is a very bad mangling that is constantly perpetuated without
people understand the problems associated with it. Much like version numbers
at the end of package names.
> Based on that, you're using the wrong command already. You're looking
> for a package, but using the "show" command, rather than the "search"
> command.
No, I am illustrating the problem. Change "apt-cache show" to "apt-get
install". Install takes a package name just as show does. Yet this works:
apt-get install pan
While this does not:
apt-get install gimp
> gimp1.2:
> Description: The GNU Image Manipulation Program, stable version 1.2
> gimp1.3:
> Description: The GNU Image Manipulation Program, development version
> Note anything significantly different between the two? I sure do.
Which is never in debate, now is it? What is in debate is how that
situation is handled and, quite frankly, how it is getting rather annoying in
some cases where the package name is being used because of "incompatibilities"
and packages that are dependant upon those which aren't incompatible. KDE
apps and the constant changing of KDE to KDEx.x.x is a prime example. It gets
frustrating when a package is unintalled because of the latest version of x or
y comes out with yet another package name, superceding and conflicting with
the previous yet, amazingly, if I force said package to install it works fine.
Yes, there are reasons to have a split. Never in question. I just do not
believe that mangling the name is the best way, nor even a desirable way, to
handle the situation. It causes problems, it causes inconsistencies, it
causes user frustration. I can dance around these issues no problem because I
have been using Debian for years. However it sure doesn't help Debian's
reputation at all nor does it help when talking to people about Debian and the
problems they've had.
I am not saying to cater to the ignorant but certainly making things
confusing and inconsistent isn't an acceptable goal, either, eh?
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
| -- Lenny Nero - Strange Days
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Attachment:
pgp6xsnKyerOi.pgp
Description: PGP signature