[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: 2008Q1 -> current: downgrade
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 12:51:28AM +0300, Aleksey Cheusov wrote:
> > if the version number travels backwards (version number being
> > dewey decimal, not numbers alphabetically-sorted), we will
> > change the PKGBASE number.
> > A worked example: wibble-2.03 is in pkgsrc. It gets taken
> > over by a new maintainer, who changes the version number to
> > 1.0, to denote the new regime. The new version in pkgsrc is
> > given the name wibble1-1.0.
> Both these variants break binary upgrades because SUPERCEDES
> functionality is not implemented in pkgsrc.
Not at all - wibble1 CONFLICTs with wibble - that is the level
of "binary upgrade" that pkgsrc deals with at the present time.
> > This is much less intrusive and annoying than having a separate
> > PKG_EPOCH value.
> No :-( Epoch approach is widely used and well-known in other packaging
Ah, the lemming principle - just because another packaging system
implements something in a weird and wacky way does not mean to say
that pkgsrc needs to do it.
Main Index |
Thread Index |