On Mon, 16 Jun 1997, Santiago Vila Doncel wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> On Sun, 15 Jun 1997, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > Two packages in the list of "important" refused to install because they
> > declared (correctly) their dependence upon packages of lower priority.
> >
> > at depends on libelf0 priority: optional
> > groff depends on libg++27 priority: standard
> >
> > It seems to me that packages of any priority level should not be dependent
> > upon packages of lower priority.
>
> I think this reasoning is wrong: We don't want to install libelf0 and
> libg++27 because they are "important", we want to install them to satisfy
> dependencies! The library itself is useless if no program uses it.
>
> So IMHO you should have added to your initial list of packages the ones on
> which they depend, until all dependencies are satisfied. dselect does this
> automatically. If you don't like it, it is supposed to be done by hand.
>
If this is true then there is no purpose served by priorities and they
should be abandoned. THIS IS NOT THE CASE.
As I understand it the priority scheme was designed to give a "horizontal"
installation method. It was intended to provide another selection method
for performing installation based on a "usefulness" criterion.
I still argue that for this to continue to be useful it must continue to
be modular in its design or it looses its usefulness.
I firmly believe that dependencies should be provided within the same
priority level or this organizational structure will fail to live up to
the expectations for it.
Later,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_-_- _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (904) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
