Re: PROPOSAL - REFORMULATED - Create alternative Packages files for each section
Em Qui, 2004-08-26 às 20:33, Matthew Palmer escreveu:
> I have one giant question for you: how will you handle cross-sectional
> dependencies? If I just specify, for instance, the kde section, how will I
> get X installed?
Surely, it's an important point. But there is one assumption on my
proposal... This would be used by users that know what they're doing.
> 2) Increase the scope of your proposal to include specifying sectional
> dependencies between sections; for instance, if I asked for the kde section,
> I automatically get the x11 section's Packages file (either by value or by
> reference, as it were).
I like this solution.
> This is nice because it reduces list bloat, but with the incestuous
> dependencies problem, you're probably going to be back to downloading at
> least half of the sections files (and, in all likelihood) almost all of them
> as soon as you pick one section. Remember that it only takes one dependency
> on a package in another section to have to pull in that entire section's
> Packages file...
Yes and no, because I think the user should still have the choice to not
download a section even if some packages in the selected sections
depends on it. Because I may want to don't install some packages of that
section, installing only the packages that doesn't have the dependency
broken.
> Another (minor) problem is that of degradation of the utility of programs
> like apt-cache, and installing packages using apt after finding them on
> p.d.o. But I think they're far smaller problems in the grand scheme of
> things, and the p.d.o problem could be solved by making it more obvious
> which sectional Packages file you need to be able to install the package.
apt-cache would search on the available packages (from the sections I
decided to download). p.d.o already tells me in which section the
package is, so is just a matter of downloading that section's packages
file.
> Please note that I'm not trying to destroy your idea; if we could do it, I
> think it would rock.
You made construtive considerations, thank you.
> But having spent a little time looking at the
> challenges I identified above, I'm not sure it's going to be such a net win.
Considering the points I made, I think so...
daniel
Reply to: