On Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 05:16:51PM -0600, Eric wrote:
> That's true, it would most definitely be a "symlink farm," but what's
> so bad about that? Priorities in apt would definitely be cool. Is
> that something that is definitely going to be incorporated?
>
> eric.
>
> On Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 03:05:56PM -0600, Stephen Pitts wrote:
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the problem with doing it in the
> > current situation is
> > that you create another symlink farm. 99% of the packages will _not_ be
> > compiled with PGCC,
> > so you have maybe 50 deb packages and 2350 links. In the future, if I can
> > give APT priorities
> > in the source list, like "Get packages from binary-i386/stable/man. If the
> > same package
> > exists in binary-i686/stable/man, then it gets precedence". That would be
> > just as cool as
> > apt-get compile-install <pkg> as a previous poster said.
> > --
> > Stephen Pitts
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > webmaster - http://www.mschess.org
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
>
Not sure, was just an idea I had off the top of my head. I'll forward the
message to someone on
the APT team. The problem with a sym-link farm is that it adds complexity to
the archive. Right
now, with 'priorities', the tree could be a lot simpler. I've had problems with
APT-GET where
the mirror I was using had bad symlinks that pointed to nowhere. I've seen
several other people
with similar problems (error message: not a plain file).
--
Stephen Pitts
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
webmaster - http://www.mschess.org
