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

Bug#758234: transitive dependencies

Le Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 01:24:32PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs a écrit :
>  	<p>
> -	  Packages must not depend on packages with lower priority
> -	  values (excluding build-time dependencies).  In order to
> -	  ensure this, the priorities of one or more packages may need
> -	  to be adjusted.
> +	  Packages may depend on other packages with lower priority values.
> +	  These other packages, or their dependencies, must not conflict with
> +	  another higher-priority package.<footnote>
> +	    Debian does not require its base-system installation scripts to employ a
> +	    full-featured dependency resolver; this rule ensures that "install
> +	    all <tt>important</tt> packages and their open dependencies" works
> +	    and results in a consistent and bootable system.
> +	  </footnote>
> +	</p>
> +	<p>
> +	  This restriction does not apply to packages of priority
> +	  <tt>optional</tt> or lower. It applies transitively.
> +	  It does not apply if a dependency is already satisfied by another
> +	  higher-priority package. If alternative dependencies are used,
> +	  it only applies to the first alternative(s).
>  	</p>

Hi Matthias and everybody,

on my side I agree that self-contained priority levels are not needed anymore
and are even becoming harmful.  This said, there were objections to the removal
of this rule in this thread and in #759260, and I do not remember if we had
good answers to each of them.  Matthias, do you think that you could make a
summary of the pros and cons that were discussed in these threads ?

Regarding your proposed change, I wonder what is the practical case for
forbidding conflicts with higher-priority packages.  Could you give an example
showing that it is strictly necessary ?  Otherwise, it would be simpler to
simply remove the requirement for adjusting priorities.

Lastly, while we are at it, let's insert a clarification that in Debian, the
priority of the packages are determined by the archive administrators, and that
the source package control file is not the canonical source of information for
a binary package's priority when this package is distributed in the Debian
archive.  (This would close #616055).

Have a nice day,

Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Reply to: