On 4/20/07, Henne Vogelsang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
On Friday, April 20, 2007 at 12:00:25, Duncan Mac-Vicar Prett wrote:
> On Thursday 19 April 2007 11:33:42 Henne Vogelsang wrote:
> > Is that not the same as we have now?
>
> No, now packages from other vendors are locked. Nothing should be locked
> unless the user locks it.
>
> I am just saying the solver should not take a update from a _different_
> vendor (different from what you have right now, not != SUSE) in consideration
> (unless the user explicitly do it) , that does not mean you lock it.
I like the suggestion a lot. The user will specifically want to
install the packman versions of crippled packages, but won't want
build service re-cripped newer versions to override them. Also it
would help discourage upgrade all mentality which would replace all
suse supported packages with the newer unsupported versions on packman
when the user doesn't require the newer version.
I see and i dont like it. Because that would mean that you never get
anything updated from a 3rd party repo because there the vendor will
always be != <what you have now a.k.a. SUSE after a install
User would still be able to request upgrade to a different vendor, but
automatic upgrades to different vendor are more likely to cause
problems than be useful imo.
_
Benjamin Weber
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
