Re: Should we allow packages to depend on packages with lower priority values?
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:25:07 -0700, Paul E Condon
<pecondon@peakpeak.com> wrote:
>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.
No. The original problem is that currently policy requires helper
packages that are needed by an important package to be important as
well. This causes these helper packages to be installed by dselect
even if they're not needed.
In fact, I am an advocate and a co-maintainer of a package that
already has a very prominent place on the supermarket shelf, and I
would like to be allowed to place some helpers on a less prominent
place so that they're not accidentally bought by somebody who does not
want the main product.
Greetings
Marc
--
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Karlsruhe, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Fon: *49 721 966 32 15
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fax: *49 721 966 31 29
Reply to: