�Liam Quin� sagte am 2002-02-12 um 13:11:46 -0500 : > On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 08:04:00AM +0100, Alexander Skwar wrote: > > �Liam Quin� sagte am 2002-02-08 um 14:26:56 -0500 : > > > It would help if urpmi removed packages that were installed OK. > > > > Against. If I download some large package and install it, I'd like to > > keep it around for whatever reason. > > I think the most common case will be to remove the package, for most > people; if you want to keep packages around I'm not sure that
Well, I'm not so sure. For one, internet access isn't cheap and fast everywhere. So downloading a (large) package twice means that you have to spend twice as much time and/or money. On the other hand, even with a fast internet connection it's convenient to have the files around, because hard disks are always faster than internet connections. For instance today I was fighting with cups and so I was removing and re-installing the RPMs about 4 or 5 times. I found it *very* convenient that I moved the files manually out of hte way of urpmi and did urpmi /some/place/*rpm, so that urpmi would not download the files over and over again. Now, if urpmi would only delete files from /var/cache if they are obsoleted (ie. a newer file is to be downloaded), than I would not have to do this by hand. So I think that /var/cache is the right mechanism. > +1 means you agree, or that you want 2 weeks? or 6 days?? Agree. And I'd also like to have 2 weeks or 42 minutes or whatever. It should be configurable. Alexander Skwar -- How to quote: http://learn.to/quote (german) http://quote.6x.to (english) Homepage: http://www.iso-top.de | Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] iso-top.de - Die g�nstige Art an Linux Distributionen zu kommen Uptime: 3 days 14 hours 19 minutes
