On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:56:14 -0500, C. David Shaffer <cdshaffer at acm.org> wrote:

> I should have tried that before posting.  Nothing is different except
> maybe that "-override" categories are the ones giving me problems.

Ah, yes, that's the key.  Recently there's been some code added to try
to be clever about what happens  with overlapping overrides -
basically Monticello is assuming that your new package is overriding
the implementations from your old package, rather than the overrides
being moved.  So it's trying to preserve the "original" version of the
methods, while you are in fact trying to get rid of them.  Though it
does sound like it's not even managing to accomplish its goals, let
alone yours.

This came up briefly on the MC list, and one thing that was proposed
then was that it's really much cleaner to depend on a new version of
the base package you want to modify, rather than overriding its
methods in your own package.  It then becomes a configuration
management issue to distribute that version along with your packages. 
Unfortunately, MC's configuration management is fairly weak for now,
but if we managed to improve it enough to support this kind of usage,
maybe we could just forbid overrides and the attendant headaches
altogether...

In the short term, I suggest that you start with a clean image and try
to reassemble your packages inside it, using changesets or whatever if
necessary, so that MC sees the methods in question as overriding the
base image rather than as one package overriding another.  You should
then be able to save versions that will load cleanly into other images
(though not necessarily upgrade cleanly from earlier versions...)

Avi