>>"Jason" == Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jason> No, you are confusing dpkg's goals with APT's high level goals, they are
Jason> seperate. dpkg has no notion of a target state, it is just a dumb
install
Jason> tool, so it is making the best judgements it can, assuming something
else
Jason> is making a descision on target state. Initialy this was dselect (in a
Jason> kind of haphazard way) and now it is also libapt.
Jason> dpkg is primarily only concerned with the package it is operating in,
Jason> except with processing conflicts which are checked in the 'reverse'
Jason> direction. People have tried to 'fix' this, but it really isn't broken,
Jason> see my extensive past commentary on this matter.
Fine. I've now sunk those parts of the description (and pared
down on other extraneous material as well.
>> If there are no other objections, could we move to have this
>> ratified as part of policy? I'll start the process unless someone has
>> a serious objection.
Jason> I feel all references to 'dselect' should be removed, or
Jason> writen in a more general way so that they can define a policy
Jason> that is common to all the installer front ends (dselect,
Jason> apt-get, capt, aptitude, gnome-apt, stormpkg, etc)
This new version does not mention dselect once.
Jason> A footnote indicating that 'dpkg' refers to any arbitary .deb
Jason> install tool would be good too.
I'll put that one in when a dpkg replacement actually emerges.
manoj
--
You roll my log, and I will roll yours. Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
