[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Tasks policy

Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 11:42:49AM -0400, Mark Eichin wrote:
> > err, does this break the use of tasks with apt-get later on?  I've
> > found it very useful to do (for example) "apt-get install task-x-window-system"
> > after getting a machine otherwise working (in particular, that's the
> > easy way to go to xf4 - install 2.2, then point to testing, then
> > apt-get install task-x-window-system which pulls in the right things from
> > testing...) 
> My thought was that apt and dselect would be taught to recognise
> Tasks: as a new type of dependency header, similar to Depends,
> Recommends and Suggests, but with slightly different rules.

If this were done, I would much prefer it were called Reverse-Recommends,
since such a thing is useful for other purposes too. I was thinking that
the relationship created by a Task: field is a reverse dependancy, but
that is not true, it is not as hard a relation as a dependancy since it
can be overridden in many ways (the simplest being, get a Packages file
that does not include the package with the Task: field). Instead, it's
like a recommends.

And while we're at it, we could implement Reverse-Suggests too, and
finally satisfy RMS..

see shy jo

Reply to: