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:
pgpQ4ifRAw_Yt.pgp
Description: PGP signature