One option smart needs to conquer the world

[Richard Hendershot]

I've always assumed that a particular version of SomeApp and SomeLib has
already been tested.  I also make the assumption that the packager has
the capability to specify the versions of dependent code.  I doubt that
it's possible, OSS-wise, to assure that everything is tested with
everything.  IMHO, these risks are similar to upgrading in the first
place ;)

On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 12:40 -0500, Neal Becker wrote:

> On Wednesday 22 February 2006 12:09 pm, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> > On Feb 22, 2006, at 11:02 AM, 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.
> >
> > Hmmm, there's actually a better implementation of downgrades possible.
> >
> > What stresses users with downgrades is that vital or important
> > information
> > might be lost forever.
> >
> > Repackaging the files that were present and saving makes downgrades
> > less risky.
> >
> 
> I don't think that's the objection.  The objections I've heard stated are that 
> downgrades may be unsafe.  It is argued that upgrade paths are tested but 
> downgrades are not.  Personally I have no opinion on this.

-- 
Richard Hendershot <rshendershot at mchsi.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.labix.org/pipermail/smart-labix.org/attachments/20060222/58067fb7/attachment-0007.htm>