Re: Package priorities and dependencies.
Santiago Vila Doncel <email@example.com> wrote:
>I think libraries should not need priorities (or they need them much less
>than ordinary program packages). So if they have more or less priority, I
>really don't mind. Go ahead.
I have a suggestion for libraries: most users don't want or need to
know about shared libraries when installing and upgrading their system,
or when adding an app etc.
There should be a flag, similar to "Essential: yes" -- perhaps
"Internal: yes", which would be noticed by dselect. The user could
then ask dselect to 'hide' all internal packages. This would mean that
they wouldn't clutter up the dselect packages list, they would be
selected -quietly- when a depending package is selected (not forcing a
trip to the dependencies screen), and they might even be automatically
marked for removal whenever no more packages depend on them.
Of course, there must be a way to switch off this behaviour and make
all packages visible, just as it's possible to override dependencies.
If you think about it, there's really no reason to select a shared
library package by hand; if you want a binary that uses it, it'll
depend on it; if you want to build against it, you install the -dev
package (which depends on it). The only time you really want to select
it by hand is when another package had faulty dependencies, or when
you're installing a non .deb'ed binary.
What do you think?
White pages entry, with PGP key: <URL:http://alethea.ukc.ac.uk/wp?95cpb4>
PGP public keyprint: 74 68 AB 2E 1C 60 22 94 B8 21 2D 01 DE 66 13 E2
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .