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

Re: General exclusion-package package (was: Bug#138541: ITP: debian-sanitize)

Steve Greenland <steveg@moregruel.net> writes:

> (Please stop CCing me personally; the one on -devel is plenty.)
> On 21-Mar-02, 00:20 (CST), Manfred Wassmann <manolo@NCC-1701.B.Shuttle.de> wrote: 
> > Not constructing a pair of scissors because you have a chain saw
> > already?  Not very convincing.
> Very clever turn of the phrase, but it doesn't apply.

I think it does but you didn't get the point.

> Ben asked about a package that would let him specify a list of
> arbitrary conflicts. The equivs package will do this,

ACK, but

> safely and cleanly.

I doubt that

> The fact that you can also use it to specify other package
> relationships, some of which may lead to problems if used unwisely,
> doesn't make it inapropriate for the desired use.

IMHO such a proliferation of a tool which is designed to circumvent
Debian's carefully crafted dependency system is like giving a chainsaw
to your children.  You could as well switch to rpm.

> Now, if you or anyone else wants to provide a castrated version of
> equivs that only supports "Conflicts:", I certainly won't object. But
> my point was that equivs is an existing, working solution to Ben's
> goal.

I would rather call it a proof of concept.  For the actual use, for
such casual tasks like building exclusion lists, there *must* be a
failsafe or foolproof version.

> The scary warning in the description is there for the same reason my
> power drill came with a more pages of safety warnings than actual
> operating guide ("Do drills holes in head, hands or other body
> parts"):

Ahh, that explains! You're also using your power drill for piercing ;)

> because when an idiot does something stupid with a tool, they want
> to blame someone else, so now we have to plaster anti-idiot warnings
> on everything.
> Steve, feeling a rant coming on.

Better hold it

regards manolo
  ... and don't get caught in the .NET!

Reply to: