2nd summary (was Re: [HEADSUP] ALL Maintainers, please reply.)

Eric Blake ebb9@byu.net
Tue Sep 27 13:43:00 GMT 2005

Hash: SHA1

According to Christopher Faylor on 9/27/2005 7:22 AM:
>>I've uploaded new empty clear packages.  I've not put the clear package
>>into the _obsolete category so far.  Can I do this already?
> Uh, I'm still not convinced that this is the right way to handle this.  It seems
> VERY obvious to me that releasing a package which deletes clear.exe is going to
> cause problems.

Why? If the old clear package is marked _obsolete, and depends on the
ncurses, then upgrading clear will gracefully transfer ownership of
clear.exe to ncurses.  This is the same approach that was used for the
transition from fileutils to coreutils - bump the old package name to the
next release number, make it empty, and make it depend on the new package
name.  I see no problems with making clear an empty package, so long as it
pulls in ncurses.

> Just deleting the old clear package will cause there to be two packages on the
> user's disk which own "clear.exe" but, since only ncurses will ever be updated
> from now on, it will always effectively have ownership of clear.exe.

Wrong.  If you do this, then a user that "knows" that clear no longer owns
clear.exe upgrades ncurses, then later uninstalls clear, they've lost
clear.exe and have to reinstall ncurses.  The only smooth upgrade path is
to have an empty clear package that gives up clear.exe at the same time
that ncurses provides it.

- --
Life is short - so eat dessert first!

Eric Blake             ebb9@byu.net
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list