On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Ivan E. Moore II wrote: > On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 12:11:48PM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote: > > On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Ivan E. Moore II wrote: > > <...> > > > > Shouldn't trying to install task-kde upgrade everything the task > > > > depends on to the most recent versions? > > > > > > no. It is meant as a installation tool not a upgrade tool. > > > > Hmmm, no easy way to have the task depend on the most recent versions > > of its components, or is it more complicated than that? > > heck no. It would require that task-kde be updated constantly with the > latest versions of every package it refers to.
right... not an easy thing to script? (hmmm, could it be generalized into a "task manager" packaging tool) > And beyond that it defeats > the purpose of a task. How so? Installing the task would still get you everything, plus you would get an upgrade if you already had the task installed. I realize this kind of behaviour would only be useful (visible) to unstable users... but isn't that where it is needed (so one can track unstable-KDE without tracking all of unstable), and wouldn't that result in more potential beta testers for the packages (by virtue of lowering the bar to tracking unstable-KDE). - Bruce
