Re: Proposal for a new package relationship option
"Thomas Bushnell, BSG" wrote:
>
> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:
>
> > >>"Miles" == Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> writes:
> >
> >
> > Miles> It also sounds like it doesn't warrant a `discourages'
> > Miles> relationship. It sounds like the maintainer should simply add
> > Miles> the necessary glue code to make sure users don't screw
> > Miles> themselves (which is what Marcus has been saying all along).
> >
> > Glue code?
> >
> > manoj
> > ps: working patches happily accepted
>
> I think the point is that cases of "discourages" don't really help
> system administrators, and they cry out for actual bug fixes.
>
I disagree. In fact, I think we need even *more* relationship options:
"DontNeed" - the inverse of, and replacement of, "Requires". Since
there are so many more packages that require each other than not, this
would save space. Even if this is not the case, we could just use this
field with the ones we're absolutely sure about, thus saving even more
space.
"InJihadAgainst" - e.g., emacsXX wrt vim OR perl wrt python. Packages
that can technically coexist, but have ideological differences. This
would hopefully encourage more folks to choose a side, dammit!
"SneersAt" - e.g., postgresql wrt mysql. A warning message could be
emitted: "Why the hell would anyone want to use Y when they already have
X? It's not even in the same class. Get real."
:-)
Reply to: