Re: sylpheed-doc package broken?
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 22:27:25 -0800
Craig Dickson <crdic@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 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.
To the extent that I've thought about it I agree with this, even with
the minor trouble it's caused me.
> (2) What happened in this case should be avoidable by a new package
> field that says, "Subordinate-To: X".
This sounds workable, but also like a large change that will be hard
to manage.
Kevin wrote earlier:
> But if the maintainer is in the habit of specifying dependencies
> this way, the issue will likely return in future upgrades, unless
> it's fixed.
>From the thread thus far and my own knowledge of apt, this seems like
a problem that the maintainer could avoid if he were sufficiently
motivated (I don't mean to cast aspersions, especially as I'm speaking
from ignorance). If this is in fact true, apt already has all the
features it needs to successfully implement binary vs. doc
dependencies, i.e. by treating a package as a package and doing as
it's told. Is this the case, or am I missing something?
Randall
Reply to: