At 17:31 Uhr -0600 01.02.2002, Ken Williams wrote: >On Thursday, January 31, 2002, at 11:28 AM, Max Horn wrote: >>Achieving that is a quite involved task indeed, since it means you >>have to keep parts of a package around (like libtiff.3.dylib), enve >>though the rest of the package is removed, creating "orphaned" >>files that nobody owns anymore, and that hence will start to heap >>up. >> > >I may be wrong, but it seems like it would be better to keep the >removal behavior the same, but if someone tries to remove a package >whose shared libs are being used by other installed packages, we >could prompt with something like "Package foo provides foolib, which >is currently used by baz-1, are you sure you want to continue?". >Would that make sense?
It's not as simple as that, as I tried to outline above. There are just to many variables, and no matter what path we'd pick, it'd feel awkward. I really think the best would be to switch over to the way debian does it, and split packages providing shlibs into a small package carrying only the shared lib, and a second having all the rest. Max -- ----------------------------------------------- Max Horn Software Developer email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> phone: (+49) 6151-494890 _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
