Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes: > Joey Hess <jo...@debian.org> writes: > >> Anyway, my worry about the refcounting approach (or perhaps M-A: same in >> general) is not the details of the implementation in dpkg, but the added >> mental complexity of dpkg now being able to have multiple distinct >> packages installed under the same name. I had a brief exposure to rpm, >> which can install multiple versions of the same package, and that was >> the main cause of much confusing behavior in rpm. While dpkg's invariant >> that all co-installable package names be unique (and have unique files) >> has certianly led to lots of ugly package names, it's kept the users' >> and developers' mental models quite simple. > >> I worry that we have barely begun to scratch the surface of the added >> complexity of losing this invariant. > > This does seem to be more M-A: same in general, to me, since whether we > have file overlaps or not we still have multiple packages with the same > name. Which will force changes in everything that deals with packages, > like Puppet, to be able to specify packages with particular architectures. > > I definitely agree on the complexity this adds. But I don't think there's > an alternative to that complexity without using something like --sysroot > or mini-chroots, and I don't think those are satisfying solutions to the > set of problems we're trying to solve.
pkg:arch will still be unique and the dpkg/apt output will use the architecture where required for uniqueness. So I think that after some getting used to it it will be clear enough again. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87r4xwrvw2.fsf@frosties.localnet