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

Re: collapse extra priority into optional and allow conflicts?

Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 00:01:43 +1000, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> said: 
>> Haven't we more or less already moved away from priorities as meaning
>> anything particularly important? We have:
>> optional -- all the good software in the world
>> extra -- obscure stuff
>         If we are removing the invariant that everything in optional
>  should not conflict with anything else in optional, and extra is where
>  the conflicing packages go, is there any reason to retain extra as a
>  distinct section?

I'd like 'extra' to disappear - so if there is a move to do that, I'm
all for it.

>> I'm not sure if there's any point to continuing to try to make sure
>> that nothing >= optional conflicts with anything else >= optional.
>         Hmm.  Can you elaborate on this, please? Is it because it is too
>  hard to achieve this? Or you think this is something unattainable even
>  in theory? It is a nice invariant, if only we could get it to hold for
>  Debian.

I have uploaded gpe-conf which is a configuration GUI for GPE (embedded)
and it doesn't sit well with larger, more complex, control centre apps
like kcontrol or gnome-control-center. It's not that surprising, GPE is
meant to be a replacement for Gnome on embedded devices that do not have
the space for Gnome. So I added a Conflict against gnome-control-center
and kcontrol - it doesn't stop people using the GPE applications in
other environments but it does prevent the simpler approach of gpe-conf
causing trouble with the more complex needs of gnome-control-center and
kcontrol. There's no point extending gpe-conf to be a mimic of
gnome-control-center (it's already one of the largest GPE packages) and
there's little point getting gpe-conf to play nicely with
gnome-control-center because the two are aimed at very different

I don't see why it is wrong for these optional packages to conflict.

(There's a separate issue that the gpe meta-package currently depends on
gsoko that is extra but that's minor - I can drop the gsoko depends on
the meta package without too much of a problem.)


Neil Williams

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: