Re: Let's CENSOR it! (was: Uploaded anarchism 7.5-1 (source all) to master)
On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 11:39:14AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> This is a common misunderstanding. Just using Replaces, Conflicts,
> and Provides does not make everything to work in a "magical" way.
>
> The developer documentation does not say this makes dselect to select for
> install the new packages and deselect the old ones, because in fact
> dselect does not do that. Using those fields just means that *when* you
> install the new ones, the old ones are automatically removed by dpkg, but
> you have to select the new packages by hand in the first place.
Indeed, I understood meaning of Replaces: as 'replaces files from
named package' not neccessarily as 'replaces the whole named package'.
> > i believe there is a bug in apt which doesn't process these correctly.
> > that is a bug in apt which needs to be fixed.
>
> APT does the right thing here. Just because a package conflicts, replaces
> and provides another one does not mean that you always have to install it
> and remove the other one.
Yes, since several packages may have Replaces: on the same package.
That is why an 'Alias:' or 'Completely-overtakes-role-of:' or whatever
field support in dpkg, is needed.
> If the dummy packages are empty, I fail to see how do they clutter
> "clutter" the distribution.
>
> It is better to end up having a few empty packages that I can remove (the
> same way we remove a library when it is no longer needed) than to end up
> having some required packages in "obsolete" state, the user might think
> they are not required for him/her, remove them, and lose their
> functionality.
>
> I have not seen a better solution than the dummy packages, so, as of
> today, there is no better solution.
Since the xbase empty package already exists, users who want a clean
system already have to enter dselect selections, find it, and remove
it. And while they're there, they might as well remove xfnt* and install
xfonts-*. The need for manual intervention is already present, so it
doesn't matter much. BTW it is all over now since slink is released.
I find splitting telnetd from netstd much more dangerous than this,
since without previous installation of several packages you are
unable to install the system remotely (through a telnet session).
But I don't regret it - people who want to do something serious, first
have to read the documentation. The documentation is the Release Notes.
BTW there is an error in that part of release notes, it says that
you need newer 'telnetd' and 'net' package. This 'net' must be changed
to 'netstd' or anything more appropriate, since package named that
way doesn't exist. But probably I read an outdated version of the
document.
--
enJoy -*/\*- http://jagor.srce.hr/~jrodin/
Reply to: