Re: smart package mgr question?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


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

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

Attachment: pgpcd01Y8979o.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[Index of Archives]     [Current Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux