Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> > Actually, I would prefer not to use numbers in the actual Packages file. We
> > should use a textual representation; implementations can convert to
> > numbers as needed. Contrast with the Priority field. Of course this
> > messe
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> Actually, I would prefer not to use numbers in the actual Packages file. We
> should use a textual representation; implementations can convert to
> numbers as needed. Contrast with the Priority field. Of course this
> messes with your idea of continually in
* Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000918 21:16]:
> Now that APT has a pinning mechanism it would be very nice if you could
> automatically install higher urgency upgrades and leave low priority stuff
> behind.
[snip snip snip]
> What do you all think?
Well Jason, I for one am constantly am
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> The idea we struck on was for each package to have a 'urgency serial
> number' which exists on the ring [0...N]. The difference in the priority
> serial numbers of any two packages indicates how urgent the upgrade is.
Actually, I would prefer not to use numbers in the act
Here is a (rephrased) thought Joey Hess brought up:
Now that APT has a pinning mechanism it would be very nice if you could
automatically install higher urgency upgrades and leave low priority stuff
behind.
Right now we have an urgency feild in the changelog but that is neither
adaquate informa
5 matches
Mail list logo
