On Thu September 27 2007 01:33:21 am Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 04:04:33 -0600, Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hmm? You assumed, and I quote "there are no such situations
> which would not already have a virtual package". Since there are
> situations where there is no virtual package, it certainly seems to
> me that the assumption you made is invalid.
That is not correct, what I assumed was:
a, "no", to the above [question]
What you quoted is not a primary assumption (as you've been treating it
as), it is based on a condition having been met.
> If your assumption is correct, then I have missed something
> somewhere.
The bit you're still missing is the first part of the question you
didn't answer: "Is there any situation where ownership has collided"
IOW: if the file shared by many packages isn't having ownership problems
there is no need to consider it (no point trying to fix something that
is not broken, eh).
> > I don't see why it would need to be universal, "one size" stuff
> > often doesn't fit anyone very well and it is not like being
> > universal is pervasive and this would stand out as a wart.
>
> If we are not talking about a policy to be made, and you are
> only talking about an opt in scheme for some orphan files, then
> indeed, I have nothing to add to the conversation.
s/some/all but a few/ I suspect
- Bruce
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
