On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:10:32 -0600
Jamin Collins <jcollins@asgardsrealm.net> wrote:
> 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.
If you were to take my "strain" example you'd be right only in that each
package without default would be on equal footing in regards to being an
upgrade in that none of them would ever be considered an upgrade.
> 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.
Which is why I had suggested a field to identify which paths of packages
were upgrades to one another and which weren't and then designate one path as
the default to be installed with the other as options. At no time would they
intermingle and it would scale from 1 to whatever.
--
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:
pgp1FUpH6vkq8.pgp
Description: PGP signature