4 ms·

You're getting caught up in implementation details. It fulfills the functional requirements in debian, shows that the problem is common to all package managers,

You're getting caught up in implementation details. It fulfills the functional requirements in debian, shows that the problem is common to all package managers, it reveals that this corner case has been touched by deb and in the end reinforces my original points that: a) The requisites for most package managers out there are not that different (i.e. it's the same problem). b) We have the problem so beaten down that we should be able to properly define the solution boundary. Is the deb solution suboptimal? Probably. It's not relevant to the main point being argued.

stinkytaco 12y ago
>You're getting caught up in implementation details. But if a package manager is anything, it's an implementation. It's not a theoretical concept, it's a tool that a user has to smooth the process of their work. Both could just install and configure packages by hand but it's the implementation that makes a package manager useful (for one being able to run multiple versions and for another being explicitly discouraged from multiple versions). Dismissing implementation details in a tool that is designed for implementation is missing the point.