On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 11:25:04 +0300 Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "ext Johannes Eickhold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I think it would be a good idea not to say "You can freely alternate > > between AI 2006 and apt-get, say. Changes done to the system via apt-get > > or dpkg are picked up by the AI 2006 without confusing it, and vice > > versa." like [1] does, if it can cause so much trouble. > > Hmm. That sentence is pretty accurate, so why should we remove it? > > It is not a guarantee, of course, that all changes to your system that > you make with apt-get will be good ones. There could be a warning > about that, but I think it should be pretty obvious that when you muck > around in your system as root that you need to be careful, no? ;) Absolutely. However the expectations of a typical Linux user are: apt-get upgrade should be harmless if my sources.list points to a stable release (such as "mistral"). I think it is a bad idea to make your system work contrary to the user's expectations. > Then again, having a package in the official maemo mistral repository > that will break your device is very bad, too. "Someone should do > something about this". I suggested on IRC yesterday to modify the postinst script of maemo-af-desktop (or whatever the package that restarts an important process and causes the lifeguard to reboot) to not stop/restart the process. Consider gdm as an analogy in the big desktop world: I can apt-get upgrade gdm in an xterm in a running X session, and the package scripts do not kill/restart it in that case. (I'd be interested in experimenting with this if I had a spare Nokia 770 that I wasn't afraid of breaking.) Marius Gedminas -- Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.
pgp0qFrT4SW7q.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
