Hi !
Le dimanche 18 juillet 2010 13:41:10, vous avez écrit :
> Something to consider for Squeeze + 1?
Agreed. Just like you it seems at some point the installation would use tools
like dpkg and install according to the priority.
Nowadays, a clear setting where we select the tip of the i
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 04:45:56PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> "brian m. carlson" writes:
>
> > The vi and nano debate was had a long time ago. So was the nvi versus
> > vim-tiny. It was decided that first-time users were not going to be
> > able to navigate vi, but experienced users would exp
"brian m. carlson" writes:
> The vi and nano debate was had a long time ago. So was the nvi versus
> vim-tiny. It was decided that first-time users were not going to be
> able to navigate vi, but experienced users would expect it. I don't
> know why people argued for vim-tiny over nvi; for a r
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:14:52PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> Of those, aptitude and it's dependencies are not necessary (just nice
> to have sometimes), tasksel and dependencies should only be included
> when using D-I, whiptail and readline (and dependencies) are not always
> necessary, partic
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 00:08:32 +0200
Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:14:57PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:04:10 -0700
> > Russ Allbery wrote:
> >
> > > Frans Pop writes:
> > >
> > > > Maybe we should consider changing the default prio for all
> > > >
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 15:16:49 -0700
Russ Allbery wrote:
apologies for this one being so long...
> Neil Williams writes:
>
> > It is very worthwhile having a clear division between Required and
> > Important. A typical bootstrap should include Required but there is
> > no need for any of the imp
Bernhard R. Link writes ("Re: Priority dependence"):
> Calculating a dependency closure is neither an easy nor an task with
> a well-defined outcome. Starting with more data makes that both more
> easy and more likely to come to deterministic results (with a good
> eno
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Priority dependence"):
> * Essential-only, usually only desirable in cases like build chroots.
> Doesn't use priority at all, but should just start from the essential
> packages and compute a dependency closure. This seems to be what the
&
* Peter Pentchev [100719 13:10]:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:41:54PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > The difference between optional and extra is indeed mood today. But I
> > guess that is mostly because dh_make is making everything optional
> > instead of extra by default...
>
> Uhm, I don't
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:41:54PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Russ Allbery [100718 19:30]:
> > Ideally, it would be nice to be able to sort out packages by priority and,
> > from that, build, say, a CD set of only the important and higher packages
> > and know that it's self-contained. In
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:41:54PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> The difference between optional and extra is indeed mood today. But I
> guess that is mostly because dh_make is making everything optional
> instead of extra by default...
Most packages can be "optional", since they don't in
* Russ Allbery [100718 19:30]:
> Ideally, it would be nice to be able to sort out packages by priority and,
> from that, build, say, a CD set of only the important and higher packages
> and know that it's self-contained. In practice, I suspect that we have
> enough packages with problems here tha
Neil Williams writes:
> It is very worthwhile having a clear division between Required and
> Important. A typical bootstrap should include Required but there is no
> need for any of the important packages and any which may be useful can
> be added explicitly.
That's probably part of what I'm mis
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:14:57PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:04:10 -0700
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > Frans Pop writes:
> >
> > > Maybe we should consider changing the default prio for all library
> > > packages to optional or lower, except for specific cases (e.g. lib
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:04:10 -0700
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Frans Pop writes:
>
> > Maybe we should consider changing the default prio for all library
> > packages to optional or lower, except for specific cases (e.g. libc)
> > where the lib itself can actually be considered part of the core syste
Russ Allbery wrote:
> [...] or between optional and extra, for *any* package?
I must admit that I've never seen the practical value of that distinction.
As to the rest of your message: it certainly seems worth discussing this in
a bit wider context.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-re
Frans Pop writes:
> I've been wondering for some time if this policy isn't outdated and
> should maybe be relaxed, at least for library packages.
> I suspect the origin of the policy is that in olden days tools like
> debootstrap and debian-cd relied exclusively on priority to get the
> contents
Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> This is due to Debian Policy 2.5:
>
> Packages must not depend on packages with lower priority values
> (excluding build-time dependencies). In order to ensure this, the
> priorities of one or more packages may need to be adjusted.
>
> Why is this the policy? Why does
"Steve M. Robbins" writes:
> This is due to Debian Policy 2.5:
> Packages must not depend on packages with lower priority values
> (excluding build-time dependencies). In order to ensure this, the
> priorities of one or more packages may need to be adjusted.
> Why is this the po
Hi,
The discussion surrounding why aptitude is priority 'important' [1] is
very enlightening. Thanks to all contributors.
With respect to the priority of libboost-iostreams, the consensus
seems to be to raise it.
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 02:18:52AM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
> [ ... ] on ba
20 matches
Mail list logo
