On 6. 12. 2012 at 11:08:43, Seth Vidal wrote: > On Thu, 6 Dec 2012, Jan Zelený wrote: > > Well, not exactly, you would still need to upgrade all packages that the > > new version of Libreoffice depends on and all packages these updated > > packages depend on and so on ... The only difference is that these > > updated packages would need to be a part of the collection while keeping > > the rest of the system intact. However the maintenance burden would be > > even higher, as maintainers would need to take care of multiple versions > > of packages in each Fedora. > > > > Bottom line, the final effect for user wouldn't be much different from > > current state of things (in fact it might get even more complicated by > > the non-trivial way how programs in collections are executed). Therefore > > this isn't exactly the use case SCLs try solve. > > I find it interesting that we've not really named the use case that SCLs > are trying to solve for. It appears to be for the case of a developer who > wants to run against a specific version of something (normally a language > or module for that language) The original use case for SCLs is to provide a way to deliver newer versions of SW in stable distributions like RHEL/CentOS than those available in the core system and make sure system packages and collection packages don't collide in any way (names, libraries, system paths, ...). However as sort of a side effect all other use cases emerge (more stable SW in Fedora, multiple versions of SW, ...). -- Thank you Jan Zeleny Red Hat Software Engineer Brno, Czech Republic
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
