Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 00:01:43 +1000, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> said: > >> Haven't we more or less already moved away from priorities as meaning >> anything particularly important? We have: > >> optional -- all the good software in the world >> extra -- obscure stuff > > If we are removing the invariant that everything in optional > should not conflict with anything else in optional, and extra is where > the conflicing packages go, is there any reason to retain extra as a > distinct section? I'd like 'extra' to disappear - so if there is a move to do that, I'm all for it. >> I'm not sure if there's any point to continuing to try to make sure >> that nothing >= optional conflicts with anything else >= optional. > > Hmm. Can you elaborate on this, please? Is it because it is too > hard to achieve this? Or you think this is something unattainable even > in theory? It is a nice invariant, if only we could get it to hold for > Debian. I have uploaded gpe-conf which is a configuration GUI for GPE (embedded) and it doesn't sit well with larger, more complex, control centre apps like kcontrol or gnome-control-center. It's not that surprising, GPE is meant to be a replacement for Gnome on embedded devices that do not have the space for Gnome. So I added a Conflict against gnome-control-center and kcontrol - it doesn't stop people using the GPE applications in other environments but it does prevent the simpler approach of gpe-conf causing trouble with the more complex needs of gnome-control-center and kcontrol. There's no point extending gpe-conf to be a mimic of gnome-control-center (it's already one of the largest GPE packages) and there's little point getting gpe-conf to play nicely with gnome-control-center because the two are aimed at very different users/devices. I don't see why it is wrong for these optional packages to conflict. (There's a separate issue that the gpe meta-package currently depends on gsoko that is extra but that's minor - I can drop the gsoko depends on the meta package without too much of a problem.) -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature