[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [PROPOSED] Change package relations policy to remove references to non-free from main

>>"Chris" == Chris Waters <xtifr@dsp.net> writes:

 Chris> Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> writes:
 >> Chris Waters wrote:
 >> > I have been unable to think of any actual legitimate use of enhances,
 >> > and you don't seem to be doing much better. 

 >> Here, I've thought of one. Nextaw could be said to enhance xcontrib,
 >> because xfontsel in that package is rather useless without it (if
 >> you want to pick the 200'th font from a menu, you need something
 >> like nextaw to scroll that menu since it can't all fit onscreen).

 Chris> In that case, why wouldn't xcontrib just suggest nextaw?  This is
 Chris> exactly the same as the last example, except that it's a "Suggests"
 Chris> not a "Depends" this time.  :-)

        Well, adminstrative. There may be gazillions of packages that
 can be said to enhance xcontrib (I am not sure there actually
 are, but for the sake or argument...). So the nextaw maintainer can
 just indicate this relationship without having to wait on the
 xcontrib maintainer, and the latter does not have to keep track of
 gazillions of packages.

        This whole thing becomes espescially important if there is
 ever an incompatible upgrade in one of the packages -- keeping track
 of one relationship is way more tractable than keeping track of
 gazillions ;-)

 Chris> The use of the term "Enhances" may be misleading.  What we're
 Chris> discussing is basically a reverse "Suggests" field.  Really, the
 Chris> proper name for this field is: "I *should* have been suggested by".
 Chris> And I think it's not as useful as a field whose proper name would be:
 Chris> "Suggested only if available".

 Chris> If this discussion is going to get anywhere, we have to call these
 Chris> fields by names that don't confuse.  I'll call 'em reverse-suggests
 Chris> and weak-suggests.

        Interesting distinction.

 Chris> So, now I'll rephrase my original comment: I can't think of any
 Chris> legitimate use of reverse-suggests that can't be met by
 Chris> weak-suggests.

 Chris> Just to be fair, I'll admit that I also can't think of any uses for
 Chris> weak-suggests that can't be met by reverse-suggests.  

        So let us just pretend that we just implement one of
 weak-suggests and reverse-suggests and call it Enhances, shall we? ;-)

BTW, I agree with most of the rest of that article
 I wish you humans would leave me alone.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E

Reply to: