Re: Should we allow packages to depend on packages with lower priority values?
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 09:21:34PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> 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.
>
My understanding of the issue in the original post of this thread is
that situations can arrise where Debian policy forbids including some
package on a CD in a way that the poster thinks it should be
included. I suppose he is an advocate of some package and wants it to
have a better position on the supermarket shelf. The answer I'm
getting to my questions seems to support the position that priorities
is a somewhat arbitrary system for including some packages and
excluding others. Maybe there isn't a system that is completely 'fair'
to all packages. Maybe it is not possible to be completely
'fair'. Maybe its not worth the effort to try. I don't know. But I do
think the priority system is something of a muddle, at least in so far
as it has been documented, to my knowledge.
I leave it to those who have been working the package priority issue
longer than I have (about 5 hrs) to decide.
--
Paul E Condon
pecondon@peakpeak.com
Reply to: