Hi - I've been on holiday but back now :)
Rainer Meier wrote:
>
>
> A negative effect would be that after a while there might be pretty much
> packages in wpkg.xml where no remove command is specified and where there
> is no
> corresponding package on server side...
>
>
All these points are
Chris Wilcox wrote:
>
> I don't even use upgrade commands, I tend to remove an existing app and
> create a new xml file for the new version.
>
I do the opposite - I change the upgrade command and don't have any remove
commands - so we are
using wpkg in completely different ways
> Writing a
Rainer Meier wrote:
Hi Simon,
simplesi wrote:
> > I've been thinking about WPKGs default behaviour (following from earlier
> > discussions) and I'd like to start a genuine discussion on changing its
> > current behaviour.
OK, let's try to get a common understanding of the ideas first.
> > Curren
Hi Simon,
simplesi wrote:
> > I've been thinking about WPKGs default behaviour (following from earlier
> > discussions) and I'd like to start a genuine discussion on changing its
> > current behaviour.
OK, let's try to get a common understanding of the ideas first.
> > Currently, WPKG will atte
>
>
> I've been thinking about WPKGs default behaviour (following from earlier
> discussions) and I'd like to start a genuine discussion on changing its
> current behaviour.
>
> Currently, WPKG will attempt to remove an existing package from the local
> compuer wpkg.xml file if it decides that
I've been thinking about WPKGs default behaviour (following from earlier
discussions) and I'd like to start a genuine discussion on changing its
current behaviour.
Currently, WPKG will attempt to remove an existing package from the local
compuer wpkg.xml file if it decides that an existing packag
