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

Re: [RFC] DEP-6: Meta-Package debian/control field

David Paleino wrote:
> Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
>> No, it doesn't. Dpkg and any sane high-level package manager won't
>> consider installing/upgrading/keeping some package (meta or not) without
>> all Depends installed.
> We can always change our tools to comply with that, no? :)
Well, yes, but I don't think that modifying low-level package manager is
justified for high-level package manager issues, and I suspect dpkg developers
will agree with me in this question.

> # apt-get install metapackage
> # apt-get --purge remove dependency1
> At this point, "dependency1" gets blacklisted or -- if you prefer -- the 
> package manager sets is pin to -infinity.
> # apt-get clean-blaclist metapackage
> The "blacklist" for metapackage gets cleaned, and, at the same time, a "apt-
> get --reinstall install metapackage" is issued.
I see some benefits for this approach, but IMHO it's a bit over-engineered -
one will need to generate several new commands (view blacklist, view list of
blacklists, already mentioned clean/change-blacklist, maybe something else),
plus it adds even more complexity to already complex problem resolver
subsystem - not I would want to implement, personally.

>> To summarize: if I am not mistaken, this DEP cannot be implemented due to
>> technical reasons in its current form.
> Could you please expand this a bit?
> Adding a new field to debian/control always needs a change in our tools
> and 
> this one touches package managers. What's wrong with this? :)
This one needs changes in dpkg. While, for example, fiddling with Recommends
may require some changes only from high-level package managers. To rephrase, I
don't see any future for this DEP before you get dpkg developers approval for
special-handling for meta-packages.

Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com
C++/Perl developer, Debian Developer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: