Bug#590511: Document significance of first-listed alternative in dependencies

["Bernhard R. Link" <brlink@debian.org>]

* Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> [100727 00:18]:
> Policy currently doesn't directly document the default choice of the
> first-listed alternative of a set of dependencies, which came up in
> the discussion of Bug #587279.  I believe Policy should state that,
> if none of the alternative dependencies are currently installed, the
> first listed alternative should be considered the default package to
> install to resolve the dependency.
>
> We probably have to be careful how we word this to provide wiggle room
> for package managers who may prefer to install the dependency that
> requires the fewest additional packages be installed ([...])

I do not think it makes sense to tell the package manager what to do,
especially as one would have to list too many exceptions anyway
(like two packages get installed that have different package at the
first position in an otherwise equal list of or'ed list).

How about rather stating that the maintainer should order the list so
that the first choice so that a user is commonly best advised to chose
the earlier over later choices? (With some extra bla about buildd
behaviour).

	Bernhard R. Link
-- 
"Never contain programs so few bugs, as when no debugging tools are available!"
	Niklaus Wirth