On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:42:32 -0600
Jamin Collins <jcollins@asgardsrealm.net> wrote:
> I don't necessarily see a problem. The current situation works (quite
> well really). Could it be better, probably. Is it currently "broken"?
> No.
Yes.
> > Step 2: defining the problem.
> I've provided a viable solution that works within the existing
> framework. You simply don't like it.
Because it is broken and gives inconsistent results.
> I'm not asking you to code the solution from start to finish. I'm just
> indicating that you should at least develop a frame work, something more
> than "change X" or "rework X". Both of these are extremely vague. I
> *have* provided an option that will work. If you don't like it (which
> you obviously don't), I consider the ball to be in your court. Come up
> with an alternate solution. Yes, that means that some work will need to
> be done by you (or someone for you). However, since you seem to be the
> one that dislikes the current method, seems fair to me.
Nevermind that my "change X" or "rework X" is at the exact same level of
the explanation you've given your solution. Difference is, it is already
coded. I've thrown out several ideas.
Modify the behavior of epoch.
Include a new field to identify separate paths of the same package.
Notice thats the same as yours:
Add version number to some package names.
--
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:
pgp9DT3DqzIEE.pgp
Description: PGP signature