On 15 May 1998 22:41:03 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> One can certainly put all new and all updated packages on
>>> hold. There are not that many sections; so it *is* possible to put
>>> ecerything on hold.
>Steve> Then ask yourself this, would you put up with having to release
>Steve> all those packages each time?
> Hell, no. But then, I like the current default: I choose which
> packages to install, and from them on I want the latest versions of
> all packages I have so chosen.
Then ask yourself why you are asking me to do the exact reverse of that?
> Seems to me you want to choose which packages to upgrade. I
> showed you how it would never upgrade any package you did not
> explicitly ask to upgrade (by releasing the hold on the
> package). Make up your mind. Either you want to select packages to
> upgrade, or you don't. If you do, hold everything, and release what
> you want. If you don't, the current default works. Wheres the beef?
The beef is that you're arguing with me because the default happens to
suit you and you don't see where the problem is with marking things to be
held yet if the situation were reversed, where you would have to constantly
mark things to be upgraded, you would find it unacceptable.
It seems to me that both behaviors are valid depending on the individual
behind the keyboard and both should be an option, not forcing people who
don't want to upgrade to constantly have to mark packages as held. Don't you
agree?
--
Steve C. Lamb | Opinions expressed by me are not my
http://www.calweb.com/~morpheus | employer's. They hired me for my
ICQ: 5107343 | skills and labor, not my opinions!
---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
