Re: Bug#29874: optional packages that should be extra
Hi,
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> writes:
Santiago> On 27 Jan 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I must confess that even I thought the the policy statement
>> meant that one should be able to install all optional packages
>> simultaneously.
Santiago> I think this is exactly the idea Ian Jackson had in mind
Santiago> when he wrote those definitions, and I think we should not
Santiago> abandon it, since it enhances Debian friendliness greatly.
I am not really conviced of this (apart from the
impracticality). We have a decent dependency mechanism, and we should
instead be working towards making it friendly.
>> Though this is a laudable goal, and indeed, was once
>> achievable, but with all the packages that we have now (pushing on to
>> 3000), I don't know if we can actually make the promise stick.
Santiago> We will not probably be able to comply with that for slink
Santiago> at this point, but if it is a laudable goal, I think we
Santiago> should try for potato.
I take laudable back ;-). It may have been a laudable goal
back when we were a toy distribution, and things could be managed so
packages did not collide. Now that we are pushing 3000 package, that
does not scale.
Santiago> For every pair of conflicting optional packages, everything
Santiago> we would have to do is:
Santiago> * To decide which of the two is better, cooler, or nicer,
Santiago> and mark the other as extra.
You must be joking. Who gets to decide this, may I ask? (I
can just see the flamwars). And anyway, there is often no clear
winner; different packages suit different situations, and we cater to
all kinds of needs. The choice, ultimately, is with the user; and we
are not helping any.
Santiago> * Or to repackage them so that they are compatible, like
Santiago> pgp-i and pgp-us (update-alternatives is our friend).
This may
Santiago> It is true that we have many packages in this situation,
Santiago> but considering that we have a *huge* number of packages
Santiago> (more than 2200 in main), they are only a tiny fraction of
Santiago> them.
But this does not scale: we are not likely to get smaller. I
think the supposed benefits of this move do not justify the efforts.
manoj
--
Base 8 is just like base 10, if you are missing two fingers. Tom
Lehrer
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: