On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 12:13:32PM -0700, Paul E Condon wrote: > So, using your example, shouldn't there be a virtual package "dawk" > (Debian awk) that is 'required' Virtual packages do not have priorities. > My point? There is probably no single set of packages that provide the > 'required' functionality, and there is no provision for declaring > alternative sets, each of which meets the needs of some user, but > which are mutually incompatible. Maybe 'required' should be a virtual > package, rather than a priority, and the packages that implement > 'required' are themselves virtual. ??? I don't have a solution, but I > think there is a logical inadequacy in Policy here. > > But maybe wait until this is a real problem before fixing it. Priorities are mostly a question of "What do I put on this CD?", and when there's a choice of two, it's not unreasonable for us to just pick one. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature