[csw-maintainers] Alternatives without automatic selection

[Philip Brown]

On 11/30/10, Geoff Davis <gadavis at opencsw.org> wrote:
> ...
> How does the alternatives mechanism handle package upgrades of an existing
> package in the Linux world? If I recall, the RPM and Debian package managers
> have the concept of "upgrade" rather than "Uninstall" followed by "Install".

I think that is a side issue; if we just focus on pure "install", the
central issue here becomes clearer. Please see below

> I would assume therefore that the initial package installation order
> determines in perpetuity what package is preferred. This would certainly be
> the behavior that I would expect from the OpenCSW tools.

well, it's exactly the opposite, from what you will get from a linux install.
Try the following, with names adjusted as appropriate, in your linux
distribution of choice that supports "alternatives":

* install [vim-tiny]

* use "vim". you'll be using "vim-tiny".

* install [full-vim]

* use "vim".

Would you expect to still be using "vim-tiny", at that point, or full "vim"?
either way, you'll GET full vim, unless you explicitly run

  "alternatives --set vim vim-tiny"

or whatever is the equivalent on that linux distro.

Why would you expect any differently?
If I, as a user, install a "better" implementation of something I was
previously using, I would expect that any intelligent packaging system
automatically use the "better" one, without me having to tell it to.


For what it's worth.. seeing as how it's "OUR" tool, so we can
customize how we like :), I could potentially see adding in some kind
of configuration option in our tool, that behaves in a "first come
first served" manner. However, given the common expectation out there
of hundreds of thousands of linux systems working in the exact
opposite way... there's no way that should be default behaviour.