On Tue 17 Dec 2019 at 13:49:31 -0600, J. Lewis Muir wrote: > On 12/17, nia wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 12:46:39PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote: > > > I again don't follow why our choice of PKGPATH or PKGNAME has anything > > > to do with these problems. > > > > 'pkgin upgrade' doesn't work. At all. You get stuck with an insecure, > > unsupported release until you explicitly do: > > > > `pkgin remove firefox60` > > `pkgin install firefox68` > > > > Then migrate your profile. > > +1. IMO, this gets to the heart of the matter and is what's important. > I want 'pkgin upgrade' to work correctly. I don't want to have a set > of packages that are special that I have to keep track of and before > every upgrade check and see what's the latest version, and then switch > to that version. Instead, I just want to be able to say, "I want the > latest stable version of this package always," and that should mean that There could be a meta-package called "firefox-esr", which depends only on "firefox-esrXX" for the latest XX. In fact, the same could be done for "firefox", depending on a "firefoxXX" package. You get automatic updates this way, unless the user specifically installs firefox-esrXX or firefoxXX. Disadvantage is that whoever adds a new firefox(-esr)XX, must remember to to adjust the meta package as well. -Olaf. -- Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert -- rhialto at falu dot nl ___ Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on \X/ no account be allowed to do the job. --Douglas Adams, "THGTTG"
Description: PGP signature