Re: dpkg should recommend dselect
On Sat, 10 Aug 2002, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> I think we should be reduceing the number of required packages, not
> increasing them.
They are being decreased. There are other factors invovled, however, that you
can't seem to get thru your thick skull.
> As required/base increases it drags in other stuff, it complicates things
> and will only make things harder in the future.
It's not increasing. It's staying the same. Get a clue.
> What was the point in seperating dpkg and dselect, i thought it was going
> to simplify things.... its not.
Er, in woody, you have both dpkg and dselect availble, at all times.
In sid, you have boht dpkg and dselect availble at all times.
How is that a loss? There is no change from before.
> I dont accept Josip reasoning as being valid, it should be possible to
> upgrade safely without making dselect a required package.
>
> If the dselect upgrade process breaks because some other package breaks
> something, then fix the other package. We shouldnt try to make the system
> idiot proof at the expense of everyone else.
Any package that is Essential: yes can *NOT* break. Period. End of story.
dpkg is an essential package. It can *NOT* break. The only way to ensure
this, is to have dpkg predepend on dselect.
This implies that dselect will not be essential in the future. But for now,
this is the case.
> Its a big deal to me becasue it seems logical and i cant understand why
> others cant see it... but so be it, this isnt helping, i surrender.
Er, get a clue.
Reply to: