One option smart needs to conquer the world

[Richard Hendershot]

Should a packager be allowed to specify this?  I'm wondering how a
packager would know about the dependencies enough to be able to decide
-for me- that downgrading is not appropriate.  When I see a lot of
removes and downgrades I have the choice of finding other appropriate
packages, waiting, etc.  If I'm getting your point, then the packager
would be able to prevent installing since it would detect a downgrade?

On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 11:31 -0500, Neal Becker wrote:

> On Wednesday 22 February 2006 11:18 am, Richard Hendershot wrote:
> > I've used Smart to downgrade and rectify conflicts a LOT.  I've never
> > had a bit of trouble.  I'm running FC4 with nrpms, at, and several other
> > repositories.  YMMV, but I'd *hate* to see less weight given to Smart's
> > ability to do these things!
> >
> > -rsh
> 
> I'm not saying that downgrade is a bad thing.  I'm saying there are a bunch of 
> people who do think that, and if we give them the option, maybe they'd be 
> happy.  I'm not saying change the default behavior.  If the option is 
> specified in such a manner that a cli interface could switch it, then a 
> fedora packager could switch it off as part of his install script.
> 
> 
> >
> > On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 11:02 -0500, Neal Becker wrote:
> > > When I talk about smart on fedora lists, there is a lot of resistance to
> > > the idea of a package system that would automatically downgrade packages.
> > >  This, they say, is not safe.
> > >
> > > What about a configuration option to prevent downgrading, or only allow
> > > it by manual override?  That should satisfy everyone.

-- 
Richard Hendershot <rshendershot at mchsi.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.labix.org/pipermail/smart-labix.org/attachments/20060222/f3679a94/attachment-0007.htm>