[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: APT [was Re: Is this really the right thing to do?]

Previously Craig Sanders wrote:
> if it affects apt and/or dpkg and/or dselect, then it is affecting
> program(s) which do not need it.

It affects only one thing: apt. dpkg does not and will not need to know
anything about this. dselect does not do this and I doubt very much
anyone will want to add support for this to it.

> i can't help but see this idea as just being an unnecessary and overly
> complicated bit of bloat.

Lots of things are unnecessary. Apt isn't necessary, dselect already works.
dselect isn't necessary, you already have ftp and dpkg. Actually it is
not that complicated at all, and you will always be able to turn this
> a command called grep can deal with this. we have a package naming
> convention that library packages begin with "lib". if a lib package
> fails to comply with policy then file a bug report.

Conventions are broken. Think gmp1, gmp2, zlib1g, xlib6g. And policy
says nothing about this. As maintainer of grep I'm well aware of its
power, and it can't begin to handle this.

> i guess i just don't see much value in making that distinction, because
> I don't ever want packages to be automatically uninstalled from my
> system....i chose to install something, so i should be the one to chose
> to uninstall it.

I don't believe you. If you selected wmaker, did you manually select
wmaker-date? If you selected kbd, did you manually select kbd-data?
If you selected fvwm2, did you manually select fvwm-common?

> huh?  aren't our packages grouped now?

No, packages can only be related through (pre-)depends, recommends and
suggests. Grouping is an entirely different thing.


This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman.
E-Mail: wakkerma@cs.leidenuniv.nl
WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/

Attachment: pgpd4WfFrbS2B.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: