On 04/ 8/10 04:49 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 04:38:43PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
On 04/ 8/10 04:33 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 04:22:15PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
On 04/ 8/10 04:12 PM, [email protected] wrote:
I can see the utility of listing
- the version installed if matching the pattern
- the latest version matching the pattern
- the latest version matching the pattern with current constraints applied
- all versions matching the pattern
- all versions matching the pattern with current constraints applied
I understand that the -f flag is to match all versions, but for the
remaining three in this list, what happens?
Danek said he was going to think about it, but the more immediate
issue was ensuring that at a minimum, -a honored pattern versions.
My assumption was that once he decided that, we'd open a separate
bugzilla entry to cover those changes.
Sorry, I'm trying to get some clarification on what the new behavior is.
Does this change do the first and third; first, second, and third; or
some other combination of the above?
It fixes the first, third, and fifth. -f is required in combination
with -a for now if you want to do the second and fourth.
Thanks for the clarification here. The change you're making is to add
the 5th case, correct? The gate code does the first and third, no?
The gate code didn't do the first and third correctly (it would ignore
the pattern if it didn't match the newest version for those cases), and
now it does.
Bart's opinion in this area is that we don't want to do that,
because there's a difference between having the renamed package
installed, and having the original and the renamed installed (which
was the case in b133 as an example). In other words, it is believed
that knowing if the stub package for a renamed package is installed
is valuable separately from knowing if the renamed package is
installed.
Interesting. I was mostly looking for a way to map old names to new
names in situations where it's not always practical to re-learn all of
the names. I agree that there may be some value in knowing that the
stub package is present in addition to the renamed package. I guess
this needs more thought. Sorry to bother you about it in this code
review.
Not a problem, you are definitely not the first person to be surprised
in this area :) I think package renaming will need to be refined
further in the future.
Cheers,
-Shawn
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
