On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 10:03:49PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > There is where we disagree. Let's agree on disagreeing. I don't think I will be able to change your mind, and even less will you be able to do so with mine ;) > Yes. I did but its not described anywhere as a design goal. We > already know that RPM has this feature. [...] When we decide who the > upstream is next, I will make sure to ask them about downgrades Just to point out a contradiction: We are nitpicking about whether rpm had downgrades planned in from the beginning or whether that support just currently exist now w/o having been planned - any future maintainer/developer of rpm will not be the right addressee about discussing design goals of rpm of the *past* simply due to time-causal reasons. BTW the whole question is off-topic with the original post that was about whether smart's downgrades are good or bad resulting to your statement on rpm not being designed for downgrades - but at least you do seem to agree by now that the current state of rpm does properly support downgrading. Enough nitpicking, I agree to disagree, and hopefully you too. :) -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpcd01Y8979o.pgp
Description: PGP signature
