Re: dpkg should recommend dselect
On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 21:07:23 +0200 (CEST)
Santiago Vila <email@example.com> wrote:
> Glenn McGrath wrote:
> > I think we should be reduceing the number of required packages, not
> > increasing them.
> You should consider the current dpkg/dselect status in sarge as the
> first step of a two-step process. The purpose of the split is to
> increase (in the long run) the freedom of dpkg/dselect users. In the
> long run, people will be able to install dpkg and not dselect. This is
> a freedom current dpkg/dselect users do not have (unless they rm dselect
> manually, which would be a system abuse).
Yea, i can see in the long run it will simplify things, but sarge + 1 is a
long way way, probably 3 or 4 years.
> Since the sum of dpkg+dselect packages are the equivalent of the
> previous dpkg package, it may be true that there is now one more
> required package, but since the code is the same as before, it's not a
> *real* increase.
Yea, i see what your saying, but from a different perspective, a package
that doesnt have to be there is still an extra package.
> Think about the current (incomplete) split as the step that will make
> the second step possible (namely, when dpkg will no longer depend on
> dselect, and dselect will stop being essential de-facto).
If it could be done safely in one step then im sure we can all agree that
it would be better aproach.