On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 11:52:23AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 05:27:21PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > There are precedents for such package, namely harden-servers and harden-clients > > What alternative to the use of Conflicts would you suggest ? > I didn't know about these, interesting packages. Seems fine to me, since > you'd never get this package causing dist-upgrade errors, or conflicting > with essential packages. They're mostly leaf packages, as far as I can > tell. > Either way, I'd like to make this perfectly clear. Could you please > either allow or disallow such relations in the examples? I don't believe there is a policy argument for disallowing such use of Conflicts. Good taste, yes; policy, no. It is legitimate to use Conflicts any time you need to declare that two packages should not be installed (== unpacked) at the same time, for /whatever/ reason - even if this is not related to file-level conflicts. > I don't see a systemd-must-die package (conflicting with a core part of > the Distro) as being productive, helpful or necessary. I definitely > don't see it as there for the right reason. I don't either, but I don't think it's for policy to forbid it. > If this case isn't special enough to be in policy (which may be fair, > given harden-*), we can get a specific ruling on it with another team. Rather, IMHO it's too special to enshrine in policy. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature