On Sunday 21 September 2008 18:18:39 Carlo Calica wrote: > On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What I do think may cause an issue is signing of programs/packages. As > > versioned binaries should be a user option packages should not contain > > them but they should be created by SymlinkProgram. This causes the > > FileHash to be out of sync, forcing the user to resign the program if > > he/she should be able to verify it later. Of course this is no problem > > if versioned binaries are adopted throughout. > Why can't SymlinkProgram create version'ed symlinks in /S/L/E > directly? That would avoid all signing/packaging issues and keep > /Programs/Foo/1.0/bin less cluttered (not a huge issue). That's another option. I think there were some arguments against it put up at some point early on, but I don't remember what they were originally. Maybe something to do with programs that acted relative to $0 somehow? Conflicts could be interesting to handle too. Perhaps someone who was around can remember what the problems were to running just `cp /S/L/E/moc /S/L/E/moc-3.3.7`.
Assuming there aren't any major problems, that would be fine too. It would be more awkward to implement in SymlinkProgram, because the overwriting would need to be special-cased, but I think that's all. My preference, for the record, is still to version all executables all the time. I like consistency and reliability. -Michael
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
