[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#235525: debian-policy: [PROPOSAL] Relax priority relations between packages (Policy 2.5)



On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:59:09 +0100, Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> said: 

> * Bill Allombert (allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr) [040311 00:40]:
>> As an example I recall the definition of 'standard' in policy 2.5.
>>
>> `standard' These packages provide a reasonably small but not too
>> limited character-mode system.  This is what will be installed by
>> default if the user doesn't select anything else.  It doesn't
>> include many large applications.
>>
>> How will you implement that once you remove the requirement of
>> standard to be self-contained ?

> With some tool that can resolve dependencies, like apt-get, aptitude
> or dselect.

	How? What if the dependencies of a standard package now
 includes TeX? Or requires Emacs? Then trying to install standard
 would bring in these huge subsystems, and make the definition of
 `standard' incorrect.

>> > Rationale: The original wording is a legacy from the times when
>> > we didn't have packaging tools as sophisticated as apt, and it
>> > was aimed to have self-contained distributions even if low
>> > priorities like extra or optional have been left off from the
>> > distribution medium.

	I do not think that is the correct. We also have some promises
 about sizes of installs, and each level was internally sufficient. I
 think that is a useful technical invarian't, and should not be given
 up lightly. 

>> Not true. Policy is not dictated by tools.

> Some parts of policy _are_ dictated by tools - and that's a good
> thing. However, if we get better tools, we can and should relax
> policy.

	But not if we also need to loosen the assertions that were
 possible to make before.

        If it is not clear, I think this is a bad idea.

	manoj
-- 
I do hate sums.  There is no greater mistake than to call arithmetic
an exact science.  There are permutations and aberrations discernible
to minds entirely noble like mine; subtle variations which ordinary
accountants fail to discover; hidden laws of number which it requires
a mind like mine to perceive.  For instance, if you add a sum from the
bottom up, and then again from the top down, the result is always
different. Mrs. La Touche
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C



Reply to: