[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 01:43:23PM +0200, Gil Bahat wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 12:01:41PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 24, 2000 at 11:21:13PM -0500, Chris Gray wrote:
> > > Recommends: !tm 
> 
> perhaps that is the right way to specify them, without adding a line.
> but what if you wanted to configure your system to treat all discouragements
> as conflicts, or something like that? you then get a conflict that lies
> in recommendation line. doesn't seem right for that.

If you add the !foo syntax you can actually specify discouragements on
different levels. We do actually have three right now. :)

In the case you gave me you should do like this:

Package: foo
Depends: !bar1, !bar2

You should read that as package foo depends on not having bar1, and bar2
installed.

I think this is a really good solution.

> > Conflicts will be depricated (but can be kept because it is easier to
> > understand). 

Just to make it more clear what I think:

"Conflicts: foo"
can be written as (but Conflicts: should not be removed, yet):
"Depends: !foo"

"Discourages: foo"
can be written either as:
"Recommends: !foo"
or
"Suggests: !foo"
depending on what you actually want.

Now to a question. Is this hard to get into dselect, apt and others?

> well, i think discouragements should be used when there is no point to 
> do a fix, like default configurations trying to use the same resources.
Yes I do think so too.

> consider the following setup - two webservers together, for example.
> such a setup is hardly common, and requires lots of scriptwork to
> support properly, but yet is possible, and should be available to those
> who need it.
Good example.

> as for security discouragements, some setups are just plain insecure
> and there's not much you can do about it, aside from warning the sysadmin.
> same goes for practical discouragements, something styled like:
> "X is known to be buggy with this revision of Y. please use Z instead,
> or a newer version of Y. you've been warned."
And an other good example.

> > I think flexibility is good most of the time.
> 
> flexibility is always good. isn't that why we all use windows^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
> linux? :-)

Yes that is why!! :-))

// Ola

-- 
 --------------------- Ola Lundqvist ---------------------------
/  opal@debian.org                     Björnkärrsgatan 5 A.11   \
|  opal@lysator.liu.se                 584 36 LINKÖPING         |
|  +46 (0)13-17 69 83                  +46 (0)70-332 1551       |
|  http://www.opal.dhs.org             UIN/icq: 4912500         |
\  gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36  4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /
 ---------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment: pgpjNZo35Z4hP.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: