On Jun 23 15:04, Yaakov S wrote: > On Wed, 2010-06-23 at 15:55 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > I've opted for using the union of previous and curr requirements but > > that's not really too great either. This is one of many places where > > we could use a real package manager. > > And you're not the only one. The problem with that is it can pull in > old libraries which (if nothing else depends on them) are simply not > necessary, and e.g. on my system, ImageBase real estate is at a premium. > > Here's a radical question: do we really need to allow for multiple > versions of every package? Other distros don't do this, why should we?
Fedora does, for instance, as soon as packages have been updated at least once. There's always a way to go back to the previous package, which is rather helpful if a package shows strange behaviour after an update. Happened to me the week before with a package in F13. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple