Re: Architecture all
Raul Miller <email@example.com> writes:
> > Because bar depends on foo and foo couldn't exist for platform
> > X. (In joeyh's example and that's what I was talking about, not
> > quake-lib)
> Ok, so it won't be fully configured. If there is no postinst
> script, this isn't a real issue.
Big if. And sorry but I don't think it's acceptable to deliberately
have unconfigurable packages. (Would you not report a bug on package
if you couldn't configure it? I certainly would)
> > Blah, I said probably never. But anyway, I don't think this is
> > justification for allowing uninstallable packages to be presented
> > to the end-user.
> How about if such packages were only offered by dselect if the user
> hit some key (along the lines of: toggle showing me packages which
> can't be properly installed from the current set)?
The whole point of this is that there is no sane way that dselect can
feasibly find out the package is uninstallable in the sense foo is,
from the available information. So your turning off uninstallable
packages solution masks both type A and type B packages. The only way
to get rid of only type B ('foo') packages is to change the
Architecture field for them, and IMO that's what should be done.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .