Federico Beffa <be...@ieee.org> skribis: > Andreas Enge <andr...@enge.fr> writes: > >> On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 06:22:28PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> There is also the question of conflicts with identical file names. They are >> already there now, but their probability should be higher with identical >> package names. Maybe we need to rethink the handling of conflicts also. > > In the past I did use the packaging system called SEPP > > http://oss.oetiker.ch/op-sepp/
Interesting. > It allow installing several versions of a program on a single system. > The way they use to avoid naming conflicts it to systematically add a > suffix to binary names, with the suffix corresponding to the version of > the package. They even went one step further and they added a suffix > with the initials of the administrator who packaged the application. > > Each program was available with several names. For program foo: > - foo > - foo-1.2.3 > - foo-1.2.3-fb > Obviously if more foo versions were installed, only one would be > referred to by foo. The others were available with versioned names. > > As a user, the system did work very well. > > To handle updating, specifying foo should update the version owning > the name foo. OK, this is a strategy similar to what Andreas was suggesting. > To update another version one would give the versioned name > "foo-1.2.3". I see. Ludo’.
