Re: New virtual package names.
Dale Scheetz writes ("Re: New virtual package names. "):
> On Fri, 9 Aug 1996, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Noone is going to deinstall all the editors on their system and not
> > notice what they've done wrong and how to fix it - this is not the
> > kind of `mistake' our dependency scheme should try to address.
> It was my understanding that this was EXACTLY what dependancies were
> designed for; Protecting the installer from removing functionality that
> other packages need.
Surely this is only useful if this is a mistake the user will be
likely to make, and then not know how to undo ?
> > The only possible consequences of creating an `editor' virtual package
> > and having things depend on it are:
> > * Needless updates to packages to add dependencies and Provides
> This is not a technical argument. It is an economic one, and should not be
> listed as a primary point. (all change takes work) Your assertion that it
> is needless is not yet backed up by technical arguments. In addition, the
> modification of other editor packages to encorporate this new VPN are not
> on any critical path, so they can happen as need arrises.
I can't prove that it's needless. You're shifting the burden of
proof. It's up to you to show that it's needed.
> > * Some person installs their own favourite editor in /usr/local
> > and wants to remove all ours but can't.
> This is true for any package that has others that depend on it. If I want
> to put a qmail of my own into /usr/local, I will still need to keep some
> Debian mail-delivery-agent installed to satisfy other packages dependance
> on an MDA. A way to tell dpkg about "non-package provides" would fix this
> problem in general, but I don't necessarily think that it is needed, or
> even desirable.
The difference is that an editor is such a fundamental and
striaghtforward thing that it will be obvious to the user what they're
doing without the dependency scheme having to tell them.
You're using a sledgehammer to crack a probably-nonexistent nut.