Re: Conflicting packages not of extra 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.
The paragraph about extra packages says that at least packages conflicting
with other packages not of extra priority must have extra priority. It
does not say that a package of extra priority is not allowed to conflict
with other extra packages.
Otherwise we would have to remove all the MTAs from the distribution.
> [...]
[ I snip here one of the objections, which has been already answered by
Jules with the horses example. I agree with him ].
> 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.
Why did we make exim important, then?
> Debian is not in the business of making such decissions for our users.
We already did it with exim.
> 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.
I think this is a common misunderstanding: We already allow the user to
decide which one he/she has to install. dselect does not prevent you from
installing extra packages.
And since optional packages are not installed by default, there should not
be any problem (with respect to "deciding by the user") in moving some of
them to extra, the user would have to select them manually anyway since
they are not to be installed by default, being extra or optional.
> > 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.
Packages which fit the definition fall in the appropriate priority.
Being a definition, it's not just "may".
> > 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.
Agreed, but this is another very different problem.
(Very different indeed).
For this very reason (lack of criteria to downgrade one or another)
I have made a report of all the conflicts and have posted to this list.
It would not probably be ok to submit a single bug report against
ftp.debian.org and tell them "fix this all".
For example, gmc conflicts with mc and mc conflicts with gmc.
Both packages are maintained by the same person. The maintainer will
surely be able to decide which one is the one that the user "might
reasonably want to install if he/she didn't know what it was or didn't
have specialised requirements" and which one is more "likely to be useful
if you already know what they are or have specialised requirements".
If there is not a real difference between the two, there exist also the
possibility of repackaging them to make them compatible, like pgp-i and
pgp-us, by using the alternatives mechanism.
( Or, if you insist that they should have the "same level", both could
be downgraded to extra at the same time :-)
Thanks.
--
"cbb241e3a43fc22cfb3939162f88775b" (a truly random sig)
Reply to: