From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: Different versions of a package in the same profile? Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 09:58:50 +0100 Message-ID: <874mugu0c5.fsf@gnu.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51698) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XlDT9-00016n-Bx for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2014 03:58:39 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XlDT2-0003i2-Cu for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2014 03:58:35 -0500 Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([2a01:474::1]:44933) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XlDT2-0003hu-53 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2014 03:58:28 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Federico Beffa's message of "Sun, 2 Nov 2014 19:52:44 +0100") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Federico Beffa Cc: Guix-devel Federico Beffa skribis: > Andreas Enge writes: > >> On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 06:22:28PM +0100, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >> There is also the question of conflicts with identical file names. They = are >> already there now, but their probability should be higher with identical >> package names. Maybe we need to rethink the handling of conflicts also. > > In the past I did use the packaging system called SEPP > > http://oss.oetiker.ch/op-sepp/ Interesting. > It allow installing several versions of a program on a single system. > The way they use to avoid naming conflicts it to systematically add a > suffix to binary names, with the suffix corresponding to the version of > the package. They even went one step further and they added a suffix > with the initials of the administrator who packaged the application. > > Each program was available with several names. For program foo: > - foo > - foo-1.2.3 > - foo-1.2.3-fb > Obviously if more foo versions were installed, only one would be > referred to by foo. The others were available with versioned names. > > As a user, the system did work very well. > > To handle updating, specifying foo should update the version owning > the name foo. OK, this is a strategy similar to what Andreas was suggesting. > To update another version one would give the versioned name > "foo-1.2.3". I see. Ludo=E2=80=99.