On Thursday 19 April 2007 11:33:42 Henne Vogelsang wrote:
Is that not the same as we have now?
Henne
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
Den Friday 20 April 2007 12:00:25 skrev Duncan Mac-Vicar Prett:
On Thursday 19 April 2007 11:33:42 Henne Vogelsang wrote:
Is that not the same as we have now?
Henne
No, now packages from other vendors are locked. Nothing should be locked
unless the user locks it.
I am just saying the
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Schlander schreef:
Den Friday 20 April 2007 14:42:42 skrev Henne Vogelsang:
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
On Friday 20 April 2007 13:13:04 Henne Vogelsang wrote:
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
Of course not, because the package from a
Il giorno ven, 20/04/2007 alle 14.42 +0200, Henne Vogelsang ha scritto:
The user specifically requested newer unsupported packages by adding
the
3rd party repo. Why would the package manager hold back those packages
and install them only on request?
In general, users add packman and other
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
Den Friday 20 April 2007 14:42:42 skrev Henne Vogelsang:
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.
This is is such a special usecase that you
On Friday 20 April 2007 14:42:42 Henne Vogelsang wrote:
The user specifically requested newer unsupported packages by adding the
3rd party repo. Why would the package manager hold back those packages
and install them only on request?
No, especially with the build service, you never know what
Hi,
On Friday, April 20, 2007 at 15:06:34, Martin Schlander wrote:
Den Friday 20 April 2007 14:42:42 skrev Henne Vogelsang:
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alberto Passalacqua schreef:
Il giorno ven, 20/04/2007 alle 14.42 +0200, Henne Vogelsang ha scritto:
The user specifically requested newer unsupported packages by adding
the
3rd party repo. Why would the package manager hold back those
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
M9. schreef:
Alberto Passalacqua schreef:
Il giorno ven, 20/04/2007 alle 14.42 +0200, Henne Vogelsang ha scritto:
The user specifically requested newer unsupported packages by adding
the
3rd party repo. Why would the package manager hold
On 20-04-2007 at 16:06, Martin Schlander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder, do kde-backports and kde-playground have same vendor? If
not this
behaviour would also make it possible to have kde-playground enabled
for
certain packages, without constantly having to be alert as to whether
Den Friday 20 April 2007 14:24:53 skrev Benji Weber:
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
Hi,
On Friday, April 20, 2007 at 13:24:53, Benji Weber wrote:
On 4/20/07, Henne Vogelsang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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?
Exactly, so for crippled packages, you want to switch vendor, and keep
upgrading from the same vendor.
If you lock them like now, you dont get upgrades
If you allow inter vendor upgrades, if a crppled version from another vendor
has a newer version, it will be replaced.
I think my proposal of
I think my proposal of
- no automatic inter-vendor upgrades, only explicit
- only explicit user locks (rules)
is much more simple and consistant.
Its better, a little bit saner. I would prefer not to upgrade by default.
You dont need to upgrade either when there is a new version of a
package
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Druid schreef:
I think my proposal of
- no automatic inter-vendor upgrades, only explicit
- only explicit user locks (rules)
is much more simple and consistant.
Its better, a little bit saner. I would prefer not to upgrade by default.
You
This is not realy correct, if a system has to be improved, in this case
the way to update/grade, this feature has to be tested vigourously, i
would not want to call this behaviour 'upgraditis' ...in this case..
You wouldnt call but it is.
And who said all repositories contains tested
Hi,
On Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 00:18:56, Duncan Mac-Vicar P. wrote:
On Wednesday 18 April 2007 11:23:12 am Henne Vogelsang wrote:
Can you specify inter-vendor upgrades please?
If you have MPlayer with vendor Foo the solver don't select Mplayer
vendor Bar as a upgrade candidate even
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Henne Vogelsang wrote:
On Tuesday, April 17, 2007 at 15:17:02, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
* Henne Vogelsang [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Apr 17. 2007 15:07]:
On Tuesday, April 17, 2007 at 14:56:30, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
bug 264685 (Get rid of package locks in
Klaus Kaempf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
bug 264685 (Get rid of package locks in package manager) asks for
reasoning of and better concepts for locking packages in the package
manager.
[...]
Proposals anyone ?
I still believe third parties (all of them) must learn not to touch the
/usr,
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 02:56:30 pm Klaus Kaempf wrote:
Hi,
bug 264685 (Get rid of package locks in package manager) asks for
reasoning of and better concepts for locking packages in the package
manager.
my proposal:
- get rid of everything we have now.
- don't allow automatic (only user
Hi,
On Wednesday, April 18, 2007 at 10:25:36, Duncan Mac-Vicar P. wrote:
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 02:56:30 pm Klaus Kaempf wrote:
bug 264685 (Get rid of package locks in package manager) asks for
reasoning of and better concepts for locking packages in the package
manager.
my
Den Tuesday 17 April 2007 14:56:30 skrev Klaus Kaempf:
Package locks try to provide a solution for the following
use-cases
Proposals anyone ?
First of all I think these benefits are far outweighed by the problems the
locks cause. So in my view the auto-locking could be just removed.
Worst
Hi,
On Tuesday, April 17, 2007 at 14:56:30, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
bug 264685 (Get rid of package locks in package manager) asks for
reasoning of and better concepts for locking packages in the package
manager.
Proposals anyone ?
Simple. Get rid of that alltogether. $VENDOR has to take care
* Henne Vogelsang [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Apr 17. 2007 15:07]:
Hi,
On Tuesday, April 17, 2007 at 14:56:30, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
bug 264685 (Get rid of package locks in package manager) asks for
reasoning of and better concepts for locking packages in the package
manager.
Proposals
Hi,
On Tuesday, April 17, 2007 at 15:17:02, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
* Henne Vogelsang [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Apr 17. 2007 15:07]:
On Tuesday, April 17, 2007 at 14:56:30, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
bug 264685 (Get rid of package locks in package manager) asks for
reasoning of and better concepts for
Am Dienstag, 17. April 2007 schrieb Henne Vogelsang:
On Tuesday, April 17, 2007 at 15:17:02, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
* Henne Vogelsang [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Apr 17. 2007 15:07]:
On Tuesday, April 17, 2007 at 14:56:30, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
bug 264685 (Get rid of package locks in package manager)
Den Tuesday 17 April 2007 23:13:12 skrev Herbert Graeber:
But sometimes it would be nice to have some form of locking. For example,
at the moment using KDE:Backprots and Packman togehter does'nt work if you
are using digikam.
Noone wants to remove the functionality completely. Only the
Hello,
on Dienstag, 17. April 2007, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
bug 264685 (Get rid of package locks in package manager) asks for
reasoning of and better concepts for locking packages in the package
manager.
[...]
The current solution to the above scenarious is to group packages
based on their
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 18:43, Christian Boltz wrote:
Package updates - change vendor?
You have installed package foo from $VENDOR, but there's a newer
version available from $OTHER_VENDOR.
What do you want to do?
[Install package from $OTHER_VENDOR]
32 matches
Mail list logo
