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?
> 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. If there is no work-around, then how was the 'extra' package
> tested on a Debian system prior to release? Or was it just released,
> because no one could ever install it, and discover/report bugs? ;-)
'required' packages are not a big deal. dpkg will remove them without
fuss. Only packages with the 'Essential: yes' control field are
really warranted to be installed. So you can indeed make a package
conflict with a required package though usually it will provide
the functionnalities of the conflicted package.
> 2. Extra can include packages that conflict with packages in
> 'optional'. How does one decide between two packages that conflict
> with each other, and each, by itself, would be a candidate for
> 'optional'? Choose one for optional and the other is forced to go in
> extra. Perhaps, the older more established pachage simply has pride of
Usually the package that is first in Debian don't have conflict
declarated. The new package need to declare conflict with it so has
to go in extra.
But extra packages are not second class citizens, and this provides an
incentive toward avoiding Conflicts and using better solutions which is
good: the ability to install two packages at the same time is important.
Look at the 'lilo vs grub' history.
> For example, if there became available an alternative Windowing System
> that conflicted with X, that would require demoting X form 'optional'
> to 'extra'.
No. Only if X were to declare conflict, but likely it will be the
alternate WS that will. Also there are lot of ways to avoid conflicts.
The main source of conflicts:
1) filename clash. Usually renaming the files is a possibility.
2) tcp port clash. This one is more problematic since all http servers
will need port 80, e.g.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: