Re: GNU emacs 21.2-3 packages available

["Gareth Pearce" <tilps at hotmail dot com>]

> On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 00:34, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
> > Robert Collins wrote:
> > >
> > What I mean to say is that, despite one's best efforts, compiled 
> source=20
> > doesn't always behave as one had intended.  Of course it will act as 
> it=20
> > is written, it just may not seem apparent that the way it acts !=3D 
> the=20
> > way you intended it to act.
>
> Now that, that I agree with.
> =20
>
> > >Yes. And it should. You've also prodded me into finding a bug. Thanks.
> > >
> > Why is this behaviour considiered a bug?  It seems quite logical to 
> me.=20
> >  It allows for the usage that Corinna had desired.  Otherwise, there 
> is=20
> > no way to garuntee that updating a package later in the alphabet 
> won't=20
> > trump an earlier update's install.  Pretty handy when you want to fix 
> a=20
> > conflicting package f*$kup.
>
> Because it's actually worse. The cause of the conflicting package f***up
> is setup not checking for conflicts. So that can and will be addressed
> in other fashions.
>
> The reason to make upgrades atomic and done one package at a time is
> to deal with cases like the following:
> A pre-removal script (which *should* trigger on upgrades) may require
> binaries from another package being upgraded. Unless that other package
> is installed again at the time of the pre-removal script triggering, bad
> things will happen.
alphabetical order can still obviously screw this up anyway, no way to work 
this perfectly until the full versioned dependency set comes in - 
pre-removal-depends post-install-depends ... etc.

Hope someone has a nice algorithm for multi-dependency ordering satifaction 
and circular dependency detection.

Gareth - notes that hotmail itself is now broken with respect to pgp mime - 
stupid hotmail.

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com