On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 07:01:35 +1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: > On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 20:49:39 Julien Cristau wrote: > > There *has* to be a preference (preferrably a common one across the > > archive). Otherwise the package manager gets to choose a random > > provider, which is the worst possible outcome. > > I do not understand why there has to be a preference. I understand behaviour > of package manager and I've deliberately chosen not to have a preference. > I do not see any benefits of having prefered client package in this case. > > Why do you insist that virtual-only dependency is wrong? > > It is hardly a "worst possible outcome" when all alternatives are equally > suitable. > But they're clearly not. The default mysql client is the mysql-client package. Why do you insist that it isn't? > > > I've realised that "virtual-mysql-client" can be demoted to Recommends -- > > > please advise if that change warrants an unblock in which case I will > > > upload to "unstable". Thank you. > > > > Not if it stays virtual-only. > > Would you be satisfied if I add an alternative as follows? > > virtual-mysql-client | mysql-client > Absolutely not. Cheers, Julien
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature