On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:35:34 -0600
Jamin Collins <jcollins@asgardsrealm.net> wrote:
> Because epoch's already have a use, which is different from what you
> describe. You're suggesting tacking new functionality on to them that
> is completely different from their existing use. Thus, existing
> packages using them will not function (WRT upgrades and what not) as
> they once did. Thus, breakage.
Which is different than changing a package name... how?
I think you made my case better than I ever could. Thanks.
> Actually, it was. You seemed to indicate that the packages for gimp
> should be called "gimp" and that there is no reason for version numbers
> in the package name. I've provided several examples of when it is
> needed (the above included).
No, you have provided an example on why there needs to be a reason to
differentiate between versions without having an update from one to the other.
You have not provided an example on why that functionality must exist solely
as a version number on the end of a package.
IE, what should happen is this:
gimp 1.2
gimp 1.3
The user gets to pick which he wants; mechanisms left to the imagination
of the reader depending on the tools they use.
> That's an issue to take up with the maintainer. If you can force the
> install and it works fine, then quite possibly, the maintain has their
> constraints too tight on the package requirements. In other words, file
> a bug against the offending package.
Which would be, what? The package that was created before the latest
named version of KDE came down the pipe or the the latest named version of KDE
which stomps on all previous dependencies? As far as I know a package which
is compiled against some part of KDE3.1.0 cannot be told to depend on
>=KDE3.1.0. Something about arithmetic and names not mixing all that well.
> So far, you're the only user I'm aware of that has become "frustrated"
> by it. Sure, there are probably more out there, but I hardly think it's
> a problem of the magnitude you claim it to be.
Pardon me for being forward thinking and despising inconsistency in one
package.
> Asking a user to use a search feature is hardly "confusing" or
> "inconsistent". Thus, I don't find the current situation to be either
> "confusing" or "inconsistent". Quite the contrary. Debian has simply
> "made sense" since I started using it.
Asking the user to use a search feature to find a package because it is
named inconsistently with the vast majority of other packages *IS*. It is a
kludge to get around a problem.
--
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:
pgpBnVFtWXfve.pgp
Description: PGP signature