On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:36:22PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 08:20:37PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > No it's not, because those libraries don't need to be removed when
> > new libraries are installed. That's not the case with exim4-config,
> > apparently. (And if it is the case, we can handle it exactly as we handle
> > libraries, with no policy change required)
> It is the case, exim4-config - once installed - does no harm besides
> eating some disk space without really being needed.
Either it shouldn't be installed in that case, or it's okay for it to
be installed. If it's not okay, then there should be a dependency. If
it is okay, there doesn't need to be any conflicts.
> And the way we
> handle libraries is indeed broken as well, because we require them to
> be manually uninstalled. If they could be priority optional, aptitude
> could automagically remove them with the packages that need them.
Why can't it do that with it at the current priority? There's no
more reason to keep unavailable, unneeded >=standard libraries than
<=optional ones.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature