Hi Francesco, On 2011-10-29 18:33, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > Well, but I hope there will be a way to tell cupt that: > > (A) version v1 of package P1 (which *is* currently installed) must not > be upgraded > > (B) package P2 (which is currently *not* installed) must not be > installed, whatever version is considered >
Yes, there will be. Again, user will be able to override that, but then he/she will know what that may lead to. > I think that the condition "apt is installed" is satisfied on almost > any Debian box... Yes. > Moreover, the condition "cupt is installed" does not necessarily mean > that the system administrator regularly uses cupt to manage packages. However, this argument works in both directions: there are people (as in >=1 :)) who have apt installed but don't use it to manage packages. > I don't think that apt-listbugs can figure out whether it should deal > with apt pinning preferences or with cupt pinning preferences. > Hence, if there are two distinct pinning preferences schemes, > apt-listbugs should try to *simultaneously* deal with both of them > (if at all possible). I don't think it will be possible to deal with more than one scheme simultaneously unless apt-listbugs decide to drop any feedback checks (i.e. parsing other user preferences). That's why I imagined it as 'run the logic 2 times'. > Finally, even if we find a way to have apt-listbugs figure out which > scheme it should use, there is always the possible scenario of a user > switching from apt(itude) to cupt or vice-versa. > That user should not lose previously set pinning preferences! This would not be a case if apt-listbugs don't select a scheme to use but just run for every installed one. That would be usually 1 and in rare cases 2. But apparently you have some reason to not plan it this way. > If I understand correctly, you are saying that apt-listbugs should > generate rules (such as A and B above) in a package-manager-agnostic > format and then convert them into package-manager-specific forms. Not like "should be", just like "could be", if we didn't have the high-level package manager monopoly. Yes, that's what I meant. > I am not sure that this could work well: what if a user manually > modifies the package-manager-specific configuration, without updating > the package-manager-agnostic configuration accordingly? In that hypothetical scenario user would have a generated file like '/etc/apt/preferences.d/05apt-listbugs' with a first line, say, -8<- # DO NOT EDIT, this file is auto-generated by apt-listbugs ->8- If he still decides to edit it, well, he/she was warned. And apt-listbugs would regenerate the file after the every run anyway. -- Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com C++/Perl developer, Debian Developer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
