Re: license packages

[Daniel Baumann <daniel@debian.org>]

Michal Suchanek wrote:
> FWIW if the first alternative was always used what use for
> alternatives is there?

there's the following reproducable case:

1. you have neither iceweasel-l10n-de installed, nor any of
   myspell-de-de, myspell-de-ch and myspell-de-at.

2. you have more packages installed that do recommend either
   myspell-de-ch or myspell-de-at, and less packages than that
   that do recommend myspell-de-de.

3. iceweasel-l10n-de recommends: myspell-de-de | myspell-de-at |
   myspell-de-ch

4. since aptitude does install recommended packages by default,
   you would imagine that an 'aptitude install iceweasel-l10n-de'
   would result in iceweasel-1l0n and myspell-de-de being installed.

   but that is not what happens. what happens is that aptitude tries
   to be extra clever and will install iceweasel-l10n-de and either
   myspell-de-at, or myspell-de-at plus myspell-de-ch, or myspell-de-ch
   (depending on how the other packages recommendations are
   distributed between the two 'unwanted' myspell packages).

   here, aptitude is doing this *against* the recommendation that i set
   as beeing the maintainer of iceweasel-l10n - it installs new packages
   without respecting my expressed will in debian/control.

> If the input-all was always chosen it would make the alternative
> dependency useless, and the package would always work.

nope. per policy, the meaning of an alternative is (have not looked it
up, my wording follows here): "install the first package if none of the
alternatives is already installed". apt does implement it according to
policy, aptitude doesn't.

-- 
Address:        Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email:          daniel.baumann@panthera-systems.net
Internet:       http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/