Re: Package priorities and dependencies.
On Mon, 16 Jun 1997, Santiago Vila Doncel wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> On Sun, 15 Jun 1997, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > Two packages in the list of "important" refused to install because they
> > declared (correctly) their dependence upon packages of lower priority.
> > at depends on libelf0 priority: optional
> > groff depends on libg++27 priority: standard
> > It seems to me that packages of any priority level should not be dependent
> > upon packages of lower priority.
> I think this reasoning is wrong: We don't want to install libelf0 and
> libg++27 because they are "important", we want to install them to satisfy
> dependencies! The library itself is useless if no program uses it.
> So IMHO you should have added to your initial list of packages the ones on
> which they depend, until all dependencies are satisfied. dselect does this
> automatically. If you don't like it, it is supposed to be done by hand.
If this is true then there is no purpose served by priorities and they
should be abandoned. THIS IS NOT THE CASE.
As I understand it the priority scheme was designed to give a "horizontal"
installation method. It was intended to provide another selection method
for performing installation based on a "usefulness" criterion.
I still argue that for this to continue to be useful it must continue to
be modular in its design or it looses its usefulness.
I firmly believe that dependencies should be provided within the same
priority level or this organizational structure will fail to live up to
the expectations for it.
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (904) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: email@example.com Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .