Re: New virtual package names.
On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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.
The burden I am trying to shift onto your shoulders is for you to have
read the complete thread of this discussion. It is not clear that you have
done so. You declared the needlessness but gave no explanation of why this
was so.
The rest of us, as a group, have discussed this, at some length, and come
to the conclusion that the editor virtual package name was a viable
solution. As a late arrival to this discussion it is your responsibility
to have, at least, read the complete discussion, and speak to the points
raised and settled there. Blanket assertions without supporting arguments
are neither constructive, nor informative.
>
> > > * 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.
>
Well, if you read the foundation postings on this subject, the nut does
exist. I still think that we are using the right sized wrench.
Later,
Dwarf
------------ --------------
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (904) 877-0257
Flexible Software Fax: NONE
Black Creek Critters e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net
------------ If you don't see what you want, just ask --------------
Reply to: