Re: Dependency and priority mismatches
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Mon, 19 Jan 1998 bhmit1@mail.wm.edu wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, Richard Braakman wrote:
> >
> > > Section 2.2 Priorities
> > > Packages may not depend on packages with lower priority values. If
> > > this should happen, one of the priority values will have to be
> > > adapted.
> >
> > Could not we relax this requirement a little bit for *libraries*?
>
> Could you explain why you want to do this, and what the benifits would be?
A library is completely useless without a package using it.
We could be installing some (or a lot of) libraries for nothing.
In what follows, X means required | standard | etc.
You can tell dselect to install all "X" packages. But if you want to save
space, you tell dselect to exclude some "X" packages, so that they are not
installed. However, libraries that are "X" just because some "X" package
depended on it (i.e. because the current policy) are still installed, so
you have to remember to deselect those by hand.
So having `required | standard | etc.' libraries may be a good idea, but
having most libraries to be *optional* would be much better for people who
want a minimal system.
In fact I think that pure-library packages should not have any priority
at all.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
iQCVAgUBNMOh8yqK7IlOjMLFAQGIIAQAqyzFAfNI+88iApdExYUF8RzR3/YP7pA2
7jAUJCJl8tQPhrjgHseAKNKPl3o1C+JHomUG/zovtv/saQEu/1y/mOoebjwuqarE
kvvoq/hqy3Mnh1+O2w1msKGJPKi6FB71UXinYwN8wUN8tXuRzx1O2NLOFgDlhcHA
fSjEBRNCG24=
=ISwj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: