Re: make replace

[David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 06:59:02PM +0200, Dieter Baron wrote:
 >   David and your stance seem to be "I'll do whatever I feel like,
 > and the package tools better deal with the fallout."  I don't think
 > this is constructive, nor do I think it is needed to accomodate
 > pkg_rr.

No, all I have said is that the package database should reflect what
the package tools have done. If running the package tools according to
their directions results in a corrupted package database, that
constitutes a bug in the package tools.

You and/or Joerg appear to have conceived the idea that the existence
of an installed package whose installation requirements are no longer
met somehow constitutes an inconsistency in the package database
itself. However, this is not true. The package database already has a
way to consistently represent at least one case of such packages and
this mechanism has been deployed and working perfectly well for
several years.

Whether the package database will in the future need to store more
detailed information, or have a more sophisticated model of broken
packages, is an open question. But it's not a question that we're
going to make any progress on until this fundamental apparent
misconception is resolved.

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost