Dagobert Michelsen <[email protected]> writes: > Hi Peter, > > Am 26.11.2010 um 09:36 schrieb Peter FELECAN: >> Dagobert Michelsen <[email protected]> writes: >>> a question arose whetere it is allowed to have two alternatives >>> with the same priority. The idea is this: If the priorities are >>> the same the package which gets installed first is kept, >>> irregardless if other alternatives are installed later. >>> One usecase would be e.g. an MTA (like sendmail) which you >>> deliberately install and configure. Than, later, some other >>> program needs some other mailer which can act as MTA or MUA >>> which should not override what you have already configured. >>> You can of course always select alternatives manually. >>> >>> This has the consequence that programs must be installed >>> in the same order they were removed as automatic same-prios >>> are not persistently saved on alternative-selection. >>> This may be necessary, though. >>> >>> Ideas? >> >> I'm not sure on what you're asking ideas... > > Would you consider same priorities a bug or a feature?
Definitely a feature! You example shows it clearly. >> however, for the order of >> installation you have the installation date of the packages which gives >> you the order until an unsynchronized update is made; otherwise, the >> alternatives system can be enhanced to make persistent the alternative >> selection and priorities, > > ATM it is persistent *only* if the selection was done manually. > If you have two packages pkg1 and pkg2 which are installed in > order and provide "soft" with the same priority then > pkg1.soft is selected and kept after installation of pkg2. > If you update, pkg1 is removed and pkg2.soft is selected. > On reinstallation of the newer pkg1 there is no switch-back > until pkg2 is also removed. So even automatic selection should > be noted and rolled back. If we implement same priority alternatives and the order of installation is rendered persistent I think that the described use case is satisfied. >> if I'm understanding correctly, we now have a >> specific alternative system, isn't it? or is still based on the Linux >> one? > > Yes, specific. CSW-custom-implemented. At least we have the advantage to enhance it (although I was opposed to such a specific implementation now I see the advantage...) What are the solutions for this issue in the Linux alternatives implementation? -- Peter _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
