Re: Should we allow packages to depend on packages with lower priority values?
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 09:31:49AM -0700, Paul E Condon wrote:
[...]
> I've just read Policy on this issue again, and more carefully. I think
> Policy is slightly broken, in its description of 'extra'
> 1. Extra can include packages that conflict with packages in
> 'required'. How can such packages be useful, except that they correct
> for the brokenness that results from removing the 'required' package?
[...]
They can provide an alternative implementation of the same
functionality. Take for example awk. mawk is small and lean and
therefore required. OTOH GNU awk provides more features which most
people don't need.
Actually gawk is optional instead of extra and does not conflict with
mawk, but I think you get the point, the extra package does not only
"correct for the brokenness that results from removing the 'required'
package" but provides additional features.
> There is something fishy here. If there is a work-around that allows
> the a system to function with a 'required' package not installed,
> then that package is not really required, and should not be
> designated as such.
We want make sure one of a set of packages providing some
functionality is installed while allowing alternative
(bloated^Wextended) implementations to be available.
cu andreas
Reply to: