Re: alternative dependency ordering - with respect of packages in main
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> While that neatly sidesteps the issue, 7.5 says:
>
> To specify which of a set of real packages should be the default to
> satisfy a particular dependency on a virtual package, list the real
> package as an alternative before the virtual one.
>
> But that doesn't specify a 'must' (or even 'should').
Well, obviously there would be a package foo in main too so this would
not be violated. I should have included such a package in my example.
> What I'm concerned
> about is if someone has already added contrib or non-free to their apt
> sources for the purpose of providing some software essential to their
> needs, by not specifying which dependency is preferable here, the user
> will arbitrarily end up with a free or non-free 'foo' which may or may
> not be what they want. Though arguably, if they wanted only the
> "essential" stuff from contrib/non-free, they could use pinning to
> ensure that's all they take.
In my intended case I believe they always end up with foo from main,
only if they choose foo-contrib will they get it, which is how I think
it should be. main should not reference packages from contrib/non-free
in any way.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Reply to: