----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 12:59 PM Subject: Re: -src package standard: proposal #5 and #5a
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 12:33:06PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Earnie Boyd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> Hmm... Why not just simply create an "All" category that all packages > >> automagically go to? That could be done with the setup.ini script > >> couldn't it? That should suffice for the short and even long terms. > > > >Because packages inevitably will conflict with each other. Say someone > >provides vim compiled for X11. What happens if both vims are installed? Ok, > >so that can be handled via symlinks, but there are corner cases, that grow > >more frequent as the package list gets bigger. > > Ok, so call it "Most". Or "Almost All". Or "Major". k. We've still got the education process to get folk to _use_ that category rather than email in "where's my vim, it didn't install" to get told "use the category 'almost all'". So the extra screen is a GUI tool more than anything else. > I still don't see a reason to invent a whole other classification > system. It's not a new system. It's _all_ coded and in cvs bar the selection screen, and a one line test in set_default. > And, now that I think of it, you're actually anticipating that there > will be a case where we'll have two executables called "vim" in the > cygwin distribution? I guess I'm having a hard time imaginging that. gvim/vim/nvi are all different. And some folk have a preference. Then you've got things like (say) fetchmail vs fetchmail+ssl. Or curl vs curl+ssl. Some packages conflict in names but could be installed alongside and resolved via symlinks. Others directly conflict with each other.
