Chris Zubrzycki wrote:
On Nov 8, 2005, at 9:33 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:
Do we have an implicit "epoch" for distributions, so that a package
built under 10.3 will be implicitly a lower version than the same
package version and revision number under 10.4-t?
[]
Long ago I repeatedly proposed putting the OS X version the info was
targeted for as the beginning of the revision field, or some form of it,
this would make it possible to update-all on an updated os x and
everything could be rebuilt and updated.
Are you arguing that on a system upgrade, *everything* needs to be
rebuilt? If you do, then there is an obvious solution which has the
advantage of requiring *less* work than the present system: Just request
that on a system upgrade, Fink should be erased and reinstalled from
scratch. Don't upgrade anything, just reinstall. Not more compiling time
than if you upgrade everything, and much less hassle, because all
backward compatibility issues would simply disappear.
We could keep the package descriptions in separate trees as we do now,
but we wouldn't need to care about comparing package versions between
trees *at all*. They could be the same or different, it wouldn't matter.
--
Martin
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download
it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
