[csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs giflib, giflib_doc, giflib_rt, libungif

[Dagobert Michelsen]

Hi Phil,

Am 12.03.2010 um 23:00 schrieb Philip Brown:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Dagobert Michelsen  
> <dam at opencsw.org> wrote:
>>> The two candidates for "what will be required",  would seem to be  
>>> either:
>>>
>>> a) read docs, run pkg-get -i giflib_extraspiffy (which will do a
>>> download of that package, and possibly ALSO the additional libX11
>>> download), then run [alternatives foo---],
>>
>> No, because the fancier one will take precedence and will  
>> automatically
>> jump in.
>
> So you are saying, that you have decided that
> pkg-get -i giflib_extraspiffy
>
> will automatically invoke [alternatives ....] to give itself priority,
> whenever it is installed?

Yes, the fancier one has higher priority, and as it is plug-compatible
you have more features at the moment you pkgadd.

> How will you determine the difference between if things are in the
> "default" state, and it is "enhancing" things, vs
>
>  1. a user has done equivalent to  [install all]
>  2. a user has explicitly chosen [alternatives simple-giflib]
>  3. a user has, months later, done pkg-get upgrade all, and
>       a pkgrm, pkgadd of giflib_extraspiffy has then been triggered?
>
> In this case, you should not automatically override user preference,
> even though the preference looks like "the default".

Yes, this works exactly as you describe. A path-group can be in
manual mode, then no automatic updating on priority is done.
If the package containing the manual selection is removed
the pathgroup switches to automatic mode and selects the path with
the highest priority. On package install it is checked if the
contained pathgroup was previously selected in manual mode. If
this was the case, the previous selection is reinstantiated.

> I'm asking this here, even if it doesnt make much sense in this
> specific case, because as you say, we need to be consistent for the
> general case behaviour as well.

Yes. The only drawback is when someone selects a manual path,
removes the package and then reinstalls it month later - then
the previous selection is also redone. But without the notion
of "update" on pkgrm/pkgadd this can not be solved.


Best regards

   -- Dago