[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: 2008Q1 -> current: downgrade
>> So, Joerg and Al: what are your proposed ways of dealing with the
>> problem at hand? Ignore it, and let users sort out the mess on their
>> own and by hand? Rename PKGBASE with all the mess and complexity
>> (strange name of installed packages, CONFLICTS, handling renames,
>> mismatch between PKGPATH and PKGBASE) that means? Any other ideas?
> Keep the version numbers in the existing scale? E.g.
> foo-20070809.4.5 This is not really more ugly than PKG_EPOCH.
This is not a solution at all. This looks ugly and smells foully.
PKG_EPOCH is logical solution for this type of problem and logical
extension to dewey. Yes, my hands are waving. I'm just shocked.
The question is sooooooooo easy.
"Overkill, unnecessary, unwanted bells and whistles"? - Oh-oh-oh...
Best regards, Aleksey Cheusov.
Main Index |
Thread Index |