On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 1:06 AM, Peter FELECAN <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Would you consider same priorities a bug or a feature? > > Definitely a feature! You example shows it clearly. >
How is it a feature? what if the install order is effectively random? how is that a benefit to the user? >If we implement same priority alternatives and the order of installation >is rendered persistent how can we possibly guarantee order of installation? That would seem to be up to the user. This sort of thing will lead to the link given by 'alternatives' to start randomly changing, from a users perspective. This is a huge anti-feature! Any time a package is being upgraded: - it gets removed. alternatives gets called. 'oh, current alternative is no longer here. use next available for link'. - newer version gets added. alternatives gets called. ' oh. there's already an alternative in place of same priority. that one gets to keep the link'. the only way to implement any kind of "first installed, keeps priority", would be to effectively lock in "first installed", in basically the same way as a manual preference. IE; equivalent to alternatives -set xxx yyyy This sort of lock-in is supposed to be reserved to the user. To have the system do this pseudo-randomly based on "which got installed first", hidden in the background, is rather against the whole principle of the 'alternatives' mechanisms. _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
