3 ms·
> 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 o
by 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.