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

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.


|  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: