On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 11:03:26AM -0500, Bob Hilliard wrote: > Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes: > > It could be used something like: > > * nothing in optional or above can conflict > I think this would be a mistake. This would make all MTAs, > except the one anointed as standard, become extra.
Indeed, and postfix is the only mta that violates this rule atm (at least
according to my available file). Well, exim is important, not standard. But
aside from that.
> I think conflicts should be permitted in common, optional and extra.
`extra'
This contains all packages that conflict with others with
required, important, standard or optional priorities, or are only
likely to be useful if you already know what they are or have
specialised requirements.
By contrast, I think policy's got it exactly right, and that almost
every package should be able to be installed simultaneously, and that
any that can't should be shoved out of the way. Being able to look at
all the main priorities and be sure that you can just choose any package
in there and not have to worry about it conflicting with anything you've
already got is a good thing.
> > common (new)
> > -- Everything that can be installed without going into
> > dselect.
> I don't understand this. Even in the dark ages PA (Pre-Apt), I
> could install any Debian package without going into dselect.
`Everything that can be installed just by telling the installer what you
want.', then perhaps. Things that'll end up on a standard install. ie,
you do the install, choose the various naive options, and end up with
everything in standard, and nothing that's not in common.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Thanks to all avid pokers out there''
-- linux.conf.au, 17-20 January 2001
pgprGGPw3jXky.pgp
Description: PGP signature
