On 02/08/2010 04:49 PM, fons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 06:42:56PM -0500, dave reisner wrote:
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 6:26 PM,<fons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In other words, do not *force* a user to update all
app using a library just because one of them requires
a newer version. Doing this leaves the user with a
broken system, possibly at the most inconvenient time.
Arch doesn't force you to update. It's been repeated ad nauseum that partial
updates are dangerous. I propose you don't update at all if you don't have
time to update everything. Problem solved. You're trying to apply an ugly
bandaid a non-existant wound.
Installing a new app is not an update. It may require
an update of a library, and my point is that such an
update should not disable other apps. Which is achieved
by just leaving the old *.so in place. That's all.
It's more and more clear that the only resistance to
this is of a very nonrational kind.
Ciao,
Why are you even using Arch? You sound like the kind of person who would
want a "stable" distro like Ubuntu or Debian. Your changes sound like
they would break the best parts of Arch (updates and simple packages).
