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

Re: collapse extra priority into optional and allow conflicts?

Russ Allbery wrote:
> Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> writes:
>> 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
> whole thing.)

Correct - GPE contains many applications that are useful in a variety of
desktop environments. The full GPE environment (such as would be
installed using the 'gpe' meta-package provided by gpe-conf) aims to
replace Gnome or KDE within the more limited needs of a specialised
environment. So GPE components can be used anywhere, the full GPE
environment, including gpe-conf and gpe-login, is different.

Whilst most GPE components can be used separately, the full environment
needs to replace the existing desktop whether that be Gnome or KDE or
chaos may ensue due to the different needs of the target environments
and the underlying configuration mechanisms and solutions.

I would have put gpe-conf into extra but it needs to depend on packages
that are in optional because those can be used within Gnome or KDE or
any other desktop. This is where the division between optional and extra
seems entirely arbitrary to me. If the reasons are historical, I would
like to propose that 'extra' is dropped or renamed as
'architecture-specific' or something of that kind.

> 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.  :)

I understand that - and I agree with you. However, packages in extra are
not supposed to depend upon or conflict with packages in optional and to
me, that makes no sense and just makes things difficult - especially
when combined with the line about not having conflicts within optional

What is the reason for having no conflicts between optional packages? Is
it still relevant? What is meant to happen when a package in extra *has
to* conflict with a package in optional?


Neil Williams

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: