Re: Conflicting packages not of extra priority.
On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Jules Bean wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > >
> > > If we use Jules interpretation, Conflicts ceases to be a useful tool.
> >
> > I don't see that it does. Conflicts is a useful tool. (Note that many
> > conflicts are versioned, in fact, and hence excluded from this reasoning).
>
> Well, now, that is a point not yet made in this argument, and certainly
> not specified in the definition of Extra.
True. To me, the intent was clear. Clarification might well be in order.
>
> I submit that the definition of the Extra priority is being misused to
> declare a whole set of conditions that are not stated in policy. This
> definition doesn't attempt to enforce the conditions you set forth, and it
> isn't clear to me that, for Optional, this would be a good idea.
It seems reasonable, to me.
Ian: How would you justify this?
>
> The problem for me, in taking the position that you do, is that this puts
> constraints on package integration that are not explicitly declared to
> exist within the policy document, that require that one package be judged
> more suitable than another. All things being equal there is no reason why
> two Optional packages with similar capabilities should be placed into
> separate priorities, and there are good reasons to have both avaiable,
> giving the installer a "free" choice between them. While this is not
> necessarily true for _all_ packages, a restriction that disallows the
> choice is too restrictive.
Maybe we should remove this clause, then.
I quite like the idea that you can install any subset of optional
packages, however.
>
> It seems to me that this disagreement speeks more to the issue of Policy
> devoid of expressed reasoning, and the problems that this causes. The
> current interpretation of this single paragraph goes way beyond the
> particulars stated in that paragraph, and touches on areas that I consider
> to be variable, depending on the particular package being discussed.
> Making a blanket assertion that goes beyond the text just isn't warranted.
To me, it is the clear implication of the text. However, I'd certainly
welcome clarification.
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | jules@debian.org | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Reply to: