smart package mgr question?

[Axel Thimm]

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
reasons.

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 ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20061002/77dd1a31/attachment-0002.bin