Re: Conflicting packages not of extra priority.
On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > >
> > > > Section 2.2:
> > > >
> > > > `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.
> > > >
> > > > The paragraph clearly states "higher priorities", not "the same priority",
> > > > [...]
> > >
> > > These paragraphs just explain what do we find in each of the different
> > > priorities. They are not worded in a way that they explicitly tell us how
> > > we have to "move" things from one priority to another one, this may be
> > > derived easily from the definition.
> > >
> > Derived from what definition?
>
> >From the definition of "extra", of course.
>
> > It seems to me that when you say "This priority contains packages that
> > conflict with higher priorities", you are _explicitly_ declaring that the
> > only way a package may conflict with a package of higher priority than
> > Extra, is to be given an Extra priority.
>
> Exactly.
>
> > This implies that, when assigning
> > a priority to a package, the existance of any conflicts other than with
> > Extra packages, requires that the priority Extra be assigned to this
> > package.
>
> Yes.
>
> > This says that it is OK for a package of priority Optional to
> > Conflict with a package of priority Extra, but not with one of any other
> > priority.
>
> Exactly.
>
> > This seems a bit rediculous to me...
>
> Mmm, why?
Because from what you say, libc6 should have a priority of Extra, as it
conflicts with several non-Extra packages, as do almost all of the other
packages delivered by the glibc source.
>
> The rationale for this policy is to make the set of
> required+important+standard+optional packages a self-consistent set.
>
> Why would this have to be ridiculous? It actually allows the user
> to install as many optional packages as he/she wants, without fearing
> about conflicts.
What is rediculous about it is the number and character of the packages
that will thus be forced to reduce their priority to Extra!
>
> > > So, the paragraph about extra packages says that if we look at the extra
> > > packages, we should find packages that conflict with others with higher
> > > priorities, i.e. we find packages that conflict with required, important,
> > > standard or optional packages, or are only likely to be useful etc.
> >
> > So it is your suggestion that Extra packages may not, according to this
> > statement, conflict with other packages of Extra priority? That is
> > interesting...
>
> No, I don't suggest that, because clearly this would be impossible
> to achieve (think about all the mail-transport-agent packages, all of them
> are (or should be) of extra priority but only one (currently exim)
> is of important priority.
>
> Also, please note that the conflicts thing is not the only reason why a
> package should be extra.
No but your reading of the statement seems to imply that you wish only
optional and above package conflicts to enforce the Extra priority. This
implies that any package that conflicts with an Extra package _must_ be in
one of the other priority groups.
>
> > In addition, you suggest that the sited paragraph says nothing about
> > packages with priority other than Extra, and makes no demands on how one
> > priority may Conflict with another, unless that package has the priority
> > Extra?
> >
> > Then it is ok for a Required package to conflict with an Optional one, or
> > vice versa?
>
> No, because both of them would conflict with a package of priority
> higher than extra.
>
There is nothing in the definition of extra that prohibits such a
conflict. The statement doesn't say "only", when applied to such
conflicts. It says that package found with Extra priority are sometimes
put there because of conflicts with other packages, and sometimes put
there because of minimal utility. This doesn't seem to require that all
such conflicts will result in a priority of Extra, only that some will.
When two pieces of software perform the exact same job to the extent that
they must conflict with each other, there is no criterion for placing one
package at a higher priority than the other. Debian is not in the business
of making such decissions for our users. The availability of the two
programs should be placed on an equal footing, allowing the user the
freedom to decide which of the two is preferred.
> > There is nothing in this paragraph that says that Optional
> > packages can't conflict with Optional packages.
> > How does this support the professed rationale?
>
> The paragraph says that packages that conflict with others of higher
> priority than extra should have extra priority.
No, it doesn't. It says that packages that do so, may be placed in Extra.
It does not say that packages that behave this way "must" be placed in
that priority.
>
> Since optional is higher than extra, at least one of the two priorities
> would have to be downgraded to extra.
>
If the packages each conflict with the other, there is no logic, provided
by your definition, for choosing which of the two should change priority.
Waiting is,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Reply to: