On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 04:30:09PM -0600, Jamin Collins wrote: > On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 12:46:16PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: > > > 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. > > No it's not. Your suggestions either break existing functionality or > rely on a non-existent mechanism of unspecified/unsuggested design. > My suggestion uses existing functionality and is already in use by many > other packages. There's quite a bit of difference there. Not to interdict in this rather pointless discussion, but package names basically serve as the 'primary key' within the Debian archive. If you start uploading packages with the exact same name, but have some other header that differs, you need to modify most everything that touches Debian packages, from the archive system to the build tools to dpkg, apt and every Frontenac ever created. Oh, and then you need to provide some field to let me distinguish which one I want to install...;-) -- Rob Weir <rweir@ertius.org> http://ertius.org/ If I want a CC, you'll know. | Do I *look* like I want another damn war?
Attachment:
pgpfqczkMoedK.pgp
Description: PGP signature