| 1 |
On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 14:48:57 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > That's something done by sets as provided by the package mangler, |
| 4 |
> > not something done by repository-specified sets. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> So we should provide separate copies of the same sets for each package |
| 7 |
> mangler? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
You should avoid providing sets that are so complicated that they rely |
| 10 |
upon executing fancy code that maps to package manager APIs that are in |
| 11 |
no way stable, documented or guaranteed to work two weeks from now. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> Well, I think a simple specification saying 'all installed packages |
| 14 |
> which install to /usr/lib/foo' is much simpler to write and maintain |
| 15 |
> than a random number of package names. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Sure, and a *user* can have a set like that, specified on the command |
| 18 |
line. That's not something a repository should be doing though. Sets as |
| 19 |
provided by the repository are a subset of sets available to the user. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives