Re: Official Exim 4 package
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 10:53:14PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 07:26:50AM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> > > The Debian packaging system only understands progress and not
> > > necissarily the ramifications of such. This could very easily be
> > > fixed and allow for multiple versions of the same package in a
> > > particular tree if the packaging tools would ask the user which
> > > version they meant, and whichever version the packager recommends
> > > using could be the default option. All this would take is adding
> > > a single, optional flag for "default version."
> >
> > I'm not convinced that this alone would be enough. It may work
> > well, provided there are only 2 versions of the package, but what
> > happens when/if a third is needed for some reason?
>
> You'd have to give an example of why it wouldn't work with more
> packages...
Assuming that the "default" option was instituted, any packages without
this indication would be on even footing WRT what constitutes and
upgrade, right? It is possible then that to non-default versions of a
package that are not upgrade compatible (configuration files changes or
otherwise). This would bring us back to the original problem.
Perhaps I'm simply mistaken, but I don't believe the "default" method
would scale. From what I can see, it would only address one instance of
package upgrade incompatibility. If another occurred before the
"default" changed, I believe it would break.
--
Jamin W. Collins
Reply to: