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

Re: RFC: Policy 10.1 and appropriateness of package conflicts

Michael Hanke writes ("Re: RFC: Policy 10.1 and appropriateness of package conflicts"):
> Well, it has been 'invented' to address a frequent user-problem that
> people can readily use the GUI parts of that package (because they are
> avialable via wrappers in /usr/bin and visible in the desktop menu), but
> once they switch to the console they cannot "see" the rest of the suite.

I see.  Couldn't you arrange to automatically update the default user
PATH ?  (After asking a suitable debconf question.)  That would avoid
having to Conflict with other packages and would make it possible for
users of this fsl nonsense and users of different nonsense to coexist
on the same machine :-).

> Of course they should read the documentation to learn how they should
> set up their $PATH correctly (and it is as simple as `man fsl`), but
> instead they flood the upstream mailing list with things like "Debian package
> broken...". I was trying to address this issue with a package that
> specifically addresses these things _in addition_ to the actual package
> that installs the suite into a private namespace.


> Still the question remains whether this setup is forbidden by policy 10.1?

Yes, I think it is, and deliberately so.

> Would it help to move the package from optional to extra?

Certainly a package like this shouldn't be in optional.


Reply to: