4 ms·
What are those technical reasons? The only answer I see in the linked thread is https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/carefully-but-purposefully-oxidising-ubuntu/56995
by yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
What are those technical reasons? The only answer I see in the linked thread is https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/carefully-but-purposefully-oxidising-ubuntu/56995/8 https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/carefully-but-purposefully-ox... which points out that it requires cooperation from the existing package (fair), but also notes that "Diversions would work"... before moving on and not even hinting at why, then, diversions were not used and a new tool was thrown in the mix.
- steveklabnik 2y ago> it requires cooperation from the existing package (fair), That is a technical reason. I think it's a good one, you may disagree. I think it's fair to start out this way and then eventually move into the alternative system once it's proven itself out. > but also notes that "Diversions would work" I've never even heard of Diversions, so I can't comment on that.
- amiga386 2y agohttps://wiki.debian.org/DpkgDiversions https://wiki.debian.org/DpkgDiversions > Diversions allow files from a package pkg-A to be temporarily replaced by files from another package pkg-B. When pkg-B is uninstalled, the files from pkg-A are put back into place. > Do not attempt to divert a file which is vitally important for the system’s operation - when using dpkg-divert there is a time, after it has been diverted but before dpkg has installed the new version, when the file does not exist.
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y agoThanks, that explains it. Coreutils certainly counts as "vitally important for the system’s operation"... Though I do wonder whether it wouldn't be reasonable to fix that limitation rather than make a new tool. That said, even if that is the better solution I do kind of get not wanting to go to that trouble for this one off.