Re: Unmet Deps revisted
Enrique Zanardi writes:
>On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 10:22:39AM +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> Am I missing something here? Where does it say that users should be able
>> to install _all_ optional packages?
>
>The policy manual suggests that:
>
>"2.2 Priorities
>[...]
> optional
> (In a sense everything is optional that isn't required, but
> that's not what is meant here.) This is all the software that
> you might reasonably want to install if you didn't know what it
> was or don't have specialised requirements. This is a much
> larger system and includes X11, a full TeX distribution, and
> lots of applications.
>
> extra
> This contains packages that conflict with others with higher
> priorities, or are only likely to be useful if you already know
> what they are or have specialised requirements.
>"
>
>By the definition of optional, a user may install all optional packages
>if she doesn't know what they are (!) or don't have specialised
>requirements.
>
>If there are optional packages that conflict with each other, we should
>choose one to stay in optional and move the others to extra. (Or change/
>clarify the definition on the policy manual).
The manual should be fixed IMHO - there are lots of places where this is
bogus. Consider the xserver packages, for example...
--
Steve McIntyre, CURS CCE, Cambridge, UK. stevem@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Getting a SCSI chain working is perfectly simple if you remember that there
must be exactly three terminations: one on one end of the cable, one on the
far end, and the goat, terminated over the SCSI chain with a silver-handled
knife whilst burning *black* candles. --- Anthony DeBoer
Reply to: