Re: Conflicting packages not of extra priority.
On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Jules Bean wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> >
> > If we use Jules interpretation, Conflicts ceases to be a useful tool.
>
> I don't see that it does. Conflicts is a useful tool. (Note that many
> conflicts are versioned, in fact, and hence excluded from this reasoning).
Well, now, that is a point not yet made in this argument, and certainly
not specified in the definition of Extra.
I submit that the definition of the Extra priority is being misused to
declare a whole set of conditions that are not stated in policy. This
definition doesn't attempt to enforce the conditions you set forth, and it
isn't clear to me that, for Optional, this would be a good idea.
The problem for me, in taking the position that you do, is that this puts
constraints on package integration that are not explicitly declared to
exist within the policy document, that require that one package be judged
more suitable than another. All things being equal there is no reason why
two Optional packages with similar capabilities should be placed into
separate priorities, and there are good reasons to have both avaiable,
giving the installer a "free" choice between them. While this is not
necessarily true for _all_ packages, a restriction that disallows the
choice is too restrictive.
It seems to me that this disagreement speeks more to the issue of Policy
devoid of expressed reasoning, and the problems that this causes. The
current interpretation of this single paragraph goes way beyond the
particulars stated in that paragraph, and touches on areas that I consider
to be variable, depending on the particular package being discussed.
Making a blanket assertion that goes beyond the text just isn't warranted.
Waiting is,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Reply to: