[email protected] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 03:36:27PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
The proposal for the new catalog format doesn't currently include or
account for our current rename implementation, so that would cause
further divergence from the partial implementation that is currently in
place.
As far as I understand it, we still plan on renaming many or all of the
packages that currently exist today. It would be difficult to do this
with a catalog format that doesn't support package renaming. The
catalog format needs the ability to support package renaming. I suppose
the proposal should be updated to include the desired rename
implementation, thought I don't know what that would be.
I'm sorry I didn't think of this sooner. I've been a bit distracted
with all of the bugs in libcurl.
Let me clarify.
The catalog format proposal does not include plans to implement support
for rename. Since the final design for rename hasn't been specified, I
can't specifically account for it.
With that said, I believe the catalog and updatelog format I proposed is
sufficiently extensible to accomodate whatever we end up choosing. I
also made the assumption that it would similar to the pkg obsoletion
mechanism that Danek recently proposed.
Cheers,
--
Shawn Walker
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
