ronin2@bellatlantic.net wrote:
> I understand that apt doesn't know anything about packages other than
> what it't told about dependencies and conflicts.
>
> Let's get to the big picture -- is the doc there to support the use of
> the binary, or is the binary there to support the use of the doc?
The doc package probably exists only because of the binary package, but
you should be able to install either without the other. So strictly
speaking, they're independent. However, when both are installed, they
should probably be in sync. That's the thing that's hard to express
other than by having each package conflict with older versions of the
other. You'd need to add more information to the debs for that, I think.
I don't think I see merit in simply saying that binary packages cannot
be automatically removed to allow for an upgrade of a doc package. I
dislike the idea of having different rules for doc packages.
> If we can agree that the binary is primary and the doc is secondary,
> then we should be able to agree that what happened to the original
> poster should not happen. The question then is what to do about it.
I'm happy with either of two perspectives on this:
(1) What happened in this case is okay; nothing's broken, nothing needs
to be changed. Keep apt simple. If you don't want to lose your
binary,just don't install anything that conflicts with it. Duh!
(2) What happened in this case should be avoidable by a new package
field that says, "Subordinate-To: X".This would tell apt that it
is not acceptable to automatically remove X because of an upgrade
or new installation of this package. Instead, apt would simply
refuse to install this package, and give the user a message
explaining that X was in the way and had to be removed manually.
Craig
Attachment:
pgpZZBNarMKKv.pgp
Description: PGP signature