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

Re: Proposal for a new package relationship option

On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 12:26:49AM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 01:15:08AM +0200, Gil Bahat wrote:
> > Definition:
> > Package X discourages Package Y when the two packages can exist in 
> > a stable setup, but may require specific configuration to co-exist,
> > or their conjunction might cause potentially undesireable effects.
> I think such two packages must not exist. Either they conflict, or they
> don't. The default configuration for non-conflicting packages should always
> allow for a peaceful coexistence, without undesireable effects whatsoever.

well, this way you're forcing users to make a choice they do not
necessarily want to do. i have a webserver installed, and i want to
test another one. i want to run two diffrent webservers together
on a production enviroment for features. or i could have a program
which supplies webserver as an extra (the realplay servers do that).
why stop me from doing so then, when it's possible?

plus, i suppose you've seen the task-secure thread. 
if not, i'll try to summarize the problem:
task-secure tries to push secure alternatives to telnet(d),
but can't conflict on them because it'd *force* people not to have them

another issue: security problems. this can add up to debian's security
by discouraging inherently insecure setups - xscreensaver and nis had
an issue like this, if i recall correctly. so instead of putting it
in a comment or doc, the system can now actually reflect this in the
package relationships.
> Wishy-washy conflicts will only add confusion to our packaging system.

it might add confusion, that's quite correct. but then again, it adds
power too. perhaps it should be configurable? (i.e. configure dpkg
by default to treat discouragements as conflicts, and allow the power
users to change that)
this way, 
> Thanks,
> Marcus

Thanks for the feedback,

.sig file pending
<imagine a cool ascii image art here>

Reply to: