| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 10:42:39 -0700 |
| 6 |
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> Some some sort of mapping of packages into sets space does seem |
| 8 |
>> better than changing the behavior of these packages other cases. |
| 9 |
>> However, PROPERTIES=set will still be useful for governing |
| 10 |
>> recursion, since recursion into dependencies is probably not desired |
| 11 |
>> for non-meta packages in the same sense that it might be desired for |
| 12 |
>> meta-packages. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> So you're saying that if a package depends upon all of foo, and a user |
| 15 |
> wants to do a deep or empty tree reinstall, all of foo shouldn't get |
| 16 |
> upgraded or reinstalled? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
No, that sort of behavior should be governed by various package |
| 20 |
manager options. The primary purpose of PROPERTIES=set is only |
| 21 |
differentiate packages that behave as package sets from those that |
| 22 |
do not. |
| 23 |
- -- |
| 24 |
Thanks, |
| 25 |
Zac |
| 26 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 27 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkjf7JsACgkQ/ejvha5XGaMF1gCfb599X9JM/8rvoOx0mLc5aMMm |
| 30 |
PN0AoLOOOIewiZSey0O1/jA+lF2F22FV |
| 31 |
=2xMK |
| 32 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives