Re: "Defaults for satisfying dependencies - ordering" gone?
On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 09:07:30AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> >> The comparison breaks down as there isn't an editor which is actually
> >> essential.
> > Yes, but _an_ editor is almost essential. Well, it's essential all right if
> > you consider that things like dircolors or nl are essential, but some people
> > will never use them (like there are people that will never use editors).
> >>From a package dependency point of view, almost essential is a world away
> from actually being essential.
Packages can assume that the user has means of editing config files without
declaring a dependency on any single editor.
If you feel it's not comparable to the situation where packages can assume
they can run ls without declaring a dependency on fileutils, fine, but
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification