Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 3:36 PM, <fons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 04:19:04PM -0500, Ray Kohler wrote:
It is *required* to do only complete system updates when using Arch.
Partial updates are not supported, *by design*.
If that is true, which I refuse to believe, it means
that Arch is a toy system only suitable for kids who
take a kick of out if keeping it up to date, in the
same way as some others keep their postage stamp
collection up to date but never use one of those
stamps to actually send a letter.
This is not conducive to fixing what you see as a flaw. Please act
less like the "kids" you so profane and try to be more constructive.
In short: if you're going to call people children, at least act like
an adult.
Would you mind explaining HOW, from a pacman perspective, you plan to
keep an old library on the system in your ideal system?
Example:
installed libfoo 1.0
installed app-bar which links to libfoo 1.0
on server libfoo 2.0 (soname change)
When I attempt to install app-baz, which pulls in libfoo 2.0, how do
you expect to resolve all the conflicts that result from keeping
libfoo 1.0 on the system at the same time as libfoo 2.0? All sorts of
things are in conflict here. There's no way to automatically cover
these cases that I can see
Why not make libfoo 2.0 and libfoo 1.0 available all time time until a
pacman -Qdt say it is not used/needed any more?
Then the user could remove it and not expect anything bad to happen.
Could something like that be done?
FWIW, I have moved from Arch to Slackware on my main machines, just
because of the "I did a sudo pacman -Syy && sudo pacman -Su" and now
have @#*%*# it's broke, syndrome . I needed stability on those
machines, not update and let's see what I have to fix for the next few
hours, or I hope it didn't break anything.
I still have arch on a "don't matter if it breaks" machine, just to play
with.
