On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 07:29:11PM +0000, Julian Coleman wrote:
> 
> My preference is for complete syspkgs.  Cutting down the amount of data to
> be transferred seems a worthy aim, but I thought that making a syspkg the
> smallest unit that is transferred is more manageable (but see below).

I worry that people are trying to use syspkgs for two different purposes:
1) selective installation
2) security updates

However, although related, they are different problems and have different
solutions.  Or at least have different constraints.

For instance you wouldn't want a securiy update to go though 'package
update hell', you just want it to overwrite the specific files.
Indeed you probably only want the re-release the specific files as well.
Which requires some sceheme that allows a file to belong to more than
one package.

Also unless you sort out the way questions get asked in sysinst (or
whatever) installing a working system becomes just too painful.

	David

-- 
David Laight: david@l8s.co.uk