On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Ben Walton <[email protected]> wrote: > Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Mon Oct 04 16:32:48 -0400 2010: > >> register with CSWalternatives: >> Good, because it then becomes easy to figure out if a link was >> created by our alternatives, >> vs done by hand or something. > > What repercussions would this have across an update of CSWalternatives > itself? Are these links registered in such a fashion that when > they're removed during an upgrade they'd be reinstated correctly > afterwards?
Yup. either they are "auto" generated, or they are a result of the "manual" choice of a user. files for which will be left in a separate place. erm.. waitaminit.. make that, "they COULD be regenerated". But I just realized that would require a postinstall script. easy enough to do once the need is known. Thanks for pointing that out. Technically, that would count as a slight negative for this category though: prompting the user to run the postinstall script. >> register with CSWxyz >> Good, because if it points to a particular implementation for the >> symlink, then when >> that package is removed, the symlink will automatically get removed. >> But then again, it should automatically get removed by class action >> script anyway, so... >> are there any other benefits this way? > > I don't care for this as much as placing the ownership with > alternatives itself. The only real benefit I see is the one you've > noted already. sounds like "one vote for making the links registered to CSWalternatives" then. Thanks for the feedback. _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
