On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 02:05:26PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
in any case, i don't see it as a problem. IMO, the fact that they have
different package names is USEFUL information. it tells me that there's
something possibly weird or dangerous going on and i should be extra
careful before i
First of all: please use a standard textwidth of at most 76. Right now
your mail frankly looks horrible. Only due to vim's awesome reformating
power is sending a reply doable :)
Previously fantumn Steven Baker wrote:
Package Naming Scheme
---
The current naming scheme of
On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 11:36:00PM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 04:03:26PM -0500, fantumn Steven Baker wrote:
Package Naming Scheme
The problem is superficial. Sure, names should be more uniform, but all
this requires is 1) ratifying naming standards and 2) ensuring
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As I said before, rpm does have the capability to install 2 different
versions of a package simulantaneously. Here's how it works, to the best of
my knowledge.
User interface:
Rpm differentiates between installing a package and upgrading a package.
Craig Sanders wrote:
i agree. in fact, it's more like a solution searching for a problem than
even a superficial problem.
It's a problem that is only evident to people who haven't lived with it for
years. That doesn't mean it's not a problem.
from the descriptions that have been posted of how
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 12:02:55AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
Craig Sanders wrote:
i agree. in fact, it's more like a solution searching for a problem than
even a superficial problem.
It's a problem that is only evident to people who haven't lived with it for
years. That doesn't mean it's
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Craig Sanders wrote:
the libgtk* versions are compatible with each other. the libgtk*-dev
versions, are not (it would be possible to make it so by installing
header files in /usr/include/gtk-VERSION, but you'd still have to modify
every source file that #included it. in
Craig Sanders wrote:
300 sounds like a lot...are you including all shared libs and -dev and
-altdev packages?
No, I was just including everything that ended with a number. That excludes
the -dev packages and it probably includes some things that don't belong. As
I said, it's a crude count.
in
On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 03:42:15PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
|
|So rpm's method of upgrading is the same as dpkg -i, whereas dpkg has nothing
|equivilant to rpm's method of just installing a package.
|
|Oh and by the way, this user interface tends to confuse new users (at least
|it did me) who
Anthony Wong wrote:
|Oh and by the way, this user interface tends to confuse new users (at least
|it did me) who accidentially install many versions of the same package
|because they arn't aware they should be upgrading it instead.
Because you already have the Debian way in your mind when
On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 04:03:26PM -0500, fantumn Steven Baker wrote:
Package Naming Scheme
The problem is superficial. Sure, names should be more uniform, but all
this requires is 1) ratifying naming standards and 2) ensuring that the
packaging system handles name changes gracefully.
CVS
On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
...
Hmmm, would the concept of meta-packages and a scheme for sharing common
files (like the RH one described?) work.
Packages could have their name extended with the version:
foo_1.2.3-1 - foo_1.2.3
foo_1.2.3-2 - foo_1.2.3
foo_1.2.4-1 - foo_1.2.4
and
Hi!
Joey Hess writes:
JH What happens if you try to install version bar of a package while
JH version foo of that same package, which contains files of the
JH same name, is installed? Rpm will happily overwrite version foo's
JH files.
Yes.
JH What happens if you then remove version foo?
fantumn Steven Baker wrote:
have this little g (imlib and fnlib come to mind). Since libc5 exists for the
most part only in the hearts of the Slackware users, this 'g' thing can be
dropped.
No it can't. Please consider backwards compatability.
Another problem with this is that many
Okay, I posted to -devel a few weeks back with a proposal for an update to dpkg.
This message is being Cc'd to -devel, and sent to -dpkg.
Basically, attached is my proposal (it's long, I'm trimming it down in another
rxvt, but, I wanted to get something out for the firing sqaud). Please read
Hi,
fantumn == fantumn \(Steven Baker\) fantumn writes:
What is wrong with cvs-buildpackage? I maintain all my
packages in CVS, and there is a well defined version based
tagging scheme.
What exactly are you attempting to solve here that has not
already been solved?
fantumn
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
What exactly are you attempting to solve here that has not
already been solved?
He's trying to solve the fact that we have package names like libgtk1.1.11
and slang0.99.38.
Why do CVS based packages need a special name? I am missing
something here. Do
As I said before, rpm does have the capability to install 2 different
versions of a package simulantaneously. Here's how it works, to the best of
my knowledge.
User interface:
Rpm differentiates between installing a package and upgrading a package.
Installing a package (rpm -i) simply unpacks
18 matches
Mail list logo
