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

Re: Proposal for a new package relationship option

On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, 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.
> Wishy-washy conflicts will only add confusion to our packaging system.

I beg to differ. Two packages which would satisfy the definition of
'discourages' would be Apache and Boa, with suitable minor configuration
changes to allow them to bind to two different ports, say Apache on 80 and
Boa on 8080. I do note that the httpd packages don't conflict with each
other, that (at least on my system) one will gracefully (and silently)
fail if the other is bound to whichever port, and that most people who
NEED two httpd running at the same time already know to edit configuration
files. ;)

However, 'discourages' as defined IS the logical relationship between the
httpd packages. A better example might be 'mail-transport-agent', which do
actually conflict with each other.

I do agree with Marcus that two packages that declare a hypothetical
'discourages' on each other must not show any undesireable behaviour when
installed together but not admin-configured.

I see 'discourages' as an "You probably shouldn't be doing this unless
you know exactly what you're doing" flag in much the same way that
'reccomends' is. (At least in the way that dselect impliments the

Reply to: