On Wed, 25 Dec 2002, Marton Fabo wrote:

> It is clear that in the current situation, simply changing the update
> process' order would cause it to fail in case of those few packages,
> while making them, because the already existing
> headers/libs/executables. I'd have a few suggestion alternatives to
> avoid this.
>
> An additional field could be added to those packages that are ready to
> be built while another version is installed on the system, to indicate
> this. "make update" would check for this field, and refuse to work in
> absence thereof, or simply use the old order.
>
> Alternatively, a negative field could be added to the packages that
> don't like being built while being also already installed, and this
> could be used for a similar purpose as the above field.

"make update" is not the only supported way to update a package. If
the package fails to build while a previous version is installed, it's
broken. There's no point in working around it -- just fix it.

Frederick