Changes between Version 1 and Version 2 of Ticket #15068, comment 20
- Timestamp:
- Sep 20, 2020, 7:41:23 PM (4 years ago)
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
- Modified
-
Ticket #15068, comment 20
v1 v2 3 3 I guess packagefs is right to complain that another package with the same name is activated, but should notice that it is going to be replaced? 4 4 5 I guess one option is to make sure the "change activation" request sent to packagefs has the disabling of the old package first, and enabling of the new one only after that? Or it should be a "reactivate package" instead of an "activate package"? In which case the linked code for packagefs would be ok, and the problem would be in the package daemon instead. 5 I guess one option is to make sure the "change activation" request sent to packagefs has the disabling of the old package first, and enabling of the new one only after that? Or it should be a "reactivate package" instead of an "activate package"? In which case the linked code for packagefs would be ok, and the problem would be in the package daemon instead. And indeed the daemon does activation first, then deactivation, and never uses the "reactivate package" code.
