Re: collapse extra priority into optional and allow conflicts?
Neil Williams <email@example.com> writes:
> There is no functional or useful distinction between optional and extra,
> as far as I can see - what are you trying to retain?
One distinction we have at the moment that I personally think is useful is
that things that most users don't care about unless they're specifically
looking for them (development packages, detached debugging symbols, that
sort of thing) are priority: extra. At least in dselect that meant they
weren't shown to the user in the same category as everything else. I
don't use anything but aptitude on the command-line these days, so I'm not
sure if the display differs in more modern interfaces, but it's useful at
least in theory to hide classes of things that the user doesn't much care
On the other hand, suppressing the libdevel category would probably
accomplish much the same.
> Not true. GPE offers a desktop - just not a full Gnome desktop. There
> are plenty of alternative desktops in optional already. The full GPE
> environment is quite specialised but Debian does claim to the The
> Universal OS. Emdebian is concentrating on arm but any architecture can
> run GPE.
Any time that you say something is "quite specialized," to me that means
it should be priority: extra. (Although you may not be referring to the
A bunch of my packages are priority: extra because they're only of use to
some Kerberos sites. It's not a mark of shame. :)
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>