[csw-maintainers] Alternatives without automatic selection

[Philip Brown]

On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 1:06 AM, Peter FELECAN <pfelecan at opencsw.org> wrote:
>
>> Would you consider same priorities a bug or a feature?
>
> Definitely a feature! You example shows it clearly.
>

How is it a feature?
what if the install order is effectively random? how is that a benefit
to the user?

>If we implement same priority alternatives and the order of installation
>is rendered persistent

how can we possibly guarantee order of installation?
That would seem to be up to the user.

This sort of thing will lead to the link given by 'alternatives' to
start randomly changing, from a users perspective. This is a huge
anti-feature!
Any time a package is being upgraded:
 - it gets removed. alternatives gets called. 'oh, current alternative
is no longer here. use next available for link'.
 - newer version gets added. alternatives gets called. ' oh. there's
already an alternative in place of same priority. that one gets to
keep the link'.


the only way to implement any kind of "first installed, keeps
priority", would be to effectively lock in "first installed", in
basically the same way as a manual preference.
IE; equivalent to    alternatives -set xxx yyyy

This sort of lock-in is supposed to be reserved to the user.
To have the system do this pseudo-randomly based on "which got
installed first", hidden in the background, is rather  against the
whole principle of the 'alternatives' mechanisms.