One option smart needs to conquer the world

[Jeff Johnson]

On Mar 8, 2006, at 8:16 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote:
>
>>>> Modifying a schema upgrade on package upgrade is what is wrong  
>>>> (imho).
>>>
>>> I agree in the general case. But, our package is not for public
>>> consumption.  Smart's dowgrade feature has never caused us a  
>>> problem,
>>> but we have safe guards in place, always due testing and don't
>>> automate the upgrades.
>>
>> That's precisely what I think.  Distribution packagers shouldn't be
>> worried about Smart downgrading things, they should be worried about
>> packaging software correctly, in a way that will never make Smart
>> downgrade a single package.
>
> Exactly. In case this happens I'm sure a packager would be thrilled to
> know the conditions. Maybe we could have a feedback mechanisme to  
> inform
> the involved packagers ? :)
>

The condition that triggers a downgrade is usually a missing  
Provides: within
the set of packages available (i.e. through channel configuration) to  
smart.

So the packager is usually aware of the Provides:, has added to later  
packaging, but
the end-user client cannot yet see the change.

73 de Jeff