On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 10:08:11PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Until these differences are identified, and resolved in the spec or at
> least implemented the same in debconf and cdebconf, it may be best if
> packages use debconf | debconf-protocol-2.0 in their dependencies so
> that dselect et al will pick the currently more sane choice by default.
If debconf is "standard" or higher, and "cdebconf" is "extra" (or
"optional"), debconf'll be chosen anyway (according to the old packaging
manual [0]), so this shouldn't be necessary. Considering it'll also have
already been installed everywhere anyway (by debootstrap, or by virtue
of being the only debconf in previous releases), this doesn't seem like
an issue at all.
Seconded.
Cheers,
aj
[0] wtf does debian-policy conflict: with the old packaging manual? It
doesn't replace any files in it, and the packaging manual is still
quite useful to have around considering it _still_ hasn't been
properly replaced. Section 8.6, "Defaults for satisfying dependencies
- ordering" is the relevant section in this case, in particular:
Usually dselect will suggest to the user that they select the package
with the most `fundamental' class (eg, it will prefer Base packages to
Optional ones), or the one that they `most wanted' to select in some
sense.
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
Attachment:
pgpKjt1UiqQbp.pgp
Description: PGP signature