Re: Tasks policy
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 04:23:47PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > My thought was that apt and dselect would be taught to recognise
> > Tasks: as a new type of dependency header, similar to Depends,
> > Recommends and Suggests, but with slightly different rules.
> If this were done, I would much prefer it were called Reverse-Recommends,
> since such a thing is useful for other purposes too. I was thinking that
> the relationship created by a Task: field is a reverse dependancy, but
> that is not true, it is not as hard a relation as a dependancy since it
> can be overridden in many ways (the simplest being, get a Packages file
> that does not include the package with the Task: field). Instead, it's
> like a recommends.
Gosh, that's not quite what I meant, but it could be an interesting
idea. I was still thinking in terms of the task-* packages themselves
containing a Tasks: field in place of Depends and Recommends fields.
> And while we're at it, we could implement Reverse-Suggests too, and
> finally satisfy RMS..
What about "Enhances"? Or is it not yet up to it?
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/