Hello, David Paleino wrote: > Implementation [...] > ### Package managers ### [...] > If any dependant package is a meta-package, as defined by this > document, it should **NOT** be removed, opposed to what the current > implementations do. The package manager should then add the removed > package to a "blacklist" for the dependant meta-package. This allows > for upgrades of the meta-package without re-installing everything again, > i.e. the package manager should check the dependencies of the > meta-package against its blacklist, if present. 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. What you described above seems more like 'Recommends'-handling to me, and some high-level package managers (I can say for cupt) have some logic to not install the same recommended packages again if they were not installed or removed when upgrading "parent" packages. > #### Blacklist management #### > Package managers should allow for deletion of the blacklist upon > removal of the meta-package. > > Moreover, they should allow the deletion of the blacklist, and the > installation of the missing meta-package dependencies at the same time. The "blacklist" support also is already present somewhere (speaking of cupt, you can set pin like "-2000" to some package, and it won't be pulled for Recommends/Suggests). To summarize: if I am not mistaken, this DEP cannot be implemented due to technical reasons in its current form. -- Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com C++/Perl developer, Debian Developer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature