Previously Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> btw: this make dpkg even slower than it is now
And where do you base that on? I can assure you that is not true. The
only things it slows down a bit is dselect since it needs to scan some
packages when you select a package. If that slowdown is too big it's
a
Previously Joey Hess wrote:
> Dpkg already has to load the whole database. It needs to see if anything
> currently installed conflicts with the package, etc.
Furthermore dpkg doesn't really need to do anything with Enhances and
can safely ignore it. dselect does need some to do some extra work
but
Previously Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> Is anyone from the policy group subscribed to the LSB specification
> mailing list? I just want to make sure that the LSB and the Debian
> policy group are on track with each other.
A couple of us are subscribed to both.
Wichert.
--
___
Previously Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 1999 at 10:54:54AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I think what you're saying here is: the policy which supports Enhances:
> > should be the same as the policy which supports Keywords:
> >
> > ?
>
> Yes.
Euh, why? They are completely unrelated. *co
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> That's solvable: create a virtual package which has a free instance
Raul> (such as Mozilla) which provides the interface you're taking advantage
of.
Raul> Actually, this particular ca
Raul Miller wrote:
> Hmm... ssh should no longer be non-free, if I recall correctly.
Yeah, I agree. For some reason my available file has this, though:
Package: ssh
Priority: optional
Section: non-US/non-free
I have no idea why. Most odd.
> And, it looks like task-chinese-t should be in contrib
> Joseph Carter wrote:
> > I'm not so sure it's such a small set of packages, but I'm agreeable to
> > that if we can do it.
On Tue, Nov 30, 1999 at 01:34:25PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Well, a simple[1] perl command can tell us exactly what packages are affected:
...
Hmm... ssh should no longer
> >> If, e.g, my package can take advantage of Netscape, then it should
> >> be the responsibility of my package, not Netscape, to mention that
> >> fact. Otherwise, Netscape (in particular) may need to have hundreds
> >> of packages listed under "Enhances". Not to mention that fact that it
>
Is anyone from the policy group subscribed to the LSB specification
mailing list? I just want to make sure that the LSB and the Debian
policy group are on track with each other.
Thanks.
Dan
Chris Waters wrote:
> I think people are becoming too ready to propose grand, sweeping
> changes to policy in order to fix obscure, minor problems.
I agree.
> If you *really* want something in policy, I'd suggest: "the package
> description should list the binaries (or at least, the main binary)
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> consider package that has no dep, rec nor sug field.
> now it was possible to simply select and install it
> but with ench field the whole database has to be scaned
> one more time for each package
Dpkg already has to load the whole database. It needs to see if anythin
Joseph Carter wrote:
> I'm not so sure it's such a small set of packages, but I'm agreeable to
> that if we can do it.
Well, a simple[1] perl command can tell us exactly what packages are affected:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~>perl -ne '($a,$b)=m/^(.*?):\s+(.*)/;$fields{lc $a}=$b; if
($a
eq "" || eof) {
On 30 Nov 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> As it stands, I agree to the enhanced proposal, but would
> object strongly to using enhances to remove mention of non-free
> packages from main (we should do it in dselect, dpkg, and apt; with
> the pacjkages not displaying non-free packages u
On Tue, Nov 30, 1999 at 11:57:53AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> > btw: this make dpkg even slower than it is now
>
> What do you have to support this statement? I can see ways that Enhances:
> could be implemented internally in dpkg as a form of Suggests, with probably
>
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Wichert> Yes and no. It's actually a nice addition to the current sent of
> Wichert> relations since we had no way for this kind of reverse relation.
>
> I agree.
As do I.
> Wichert>
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> btw: this make dpkg even slower than it is now
What do you have to support this statement? I can see ways that Enhances:
could be implemented internally in dpkg as a form of Suggests, with probably
no speed differance.
--
see shy jo
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> Go over to debian-legal and read the Corel threads there, then
Raul> come back and tell me that everyone is happy, in general, about
Raul> debian distributions which mix free and non-free software.
So we should let the peopl
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> On Mon, Nov 29, 1999 at 08:54:56PM +0100, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
>> Your proposal means, that I should remove netpbm-nonfree from
>> transfig's suggests and add "Enhances: netpbm-nonfree" to
>> netpbm-nonfree.
>>
>> Is this rea
Hi,
>>"Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Wichert> `Enhances'
Wichert>This field is similar to Suggests but works in the opposite
Wichert>direction. It is used to declare that a package can enhance
Wichert>the functionality of another package.
Wichert>
Hi,
>>"Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Wichert> Yes and no. It's actually a nice addition to the current sent of
Wichert> relations since we had no way for this kind of reverse relation.
I agree.
Wichert> It's true that for some of the existing relations repla
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If, e.g, my package can take advantage of Netscape, then it should
>> be the responsibility of my package, not Netscape, to mention that
>> fact. Otherwise, Netscape (in particular) may need to have hundreds
>> of packages listed under
I second Wichert's proposal that policy recommend
non-free package Enhances: free package, in place of
free package Suggests: non-free package.
--
Raul
On Mon, Nov 29, 1999 at 10:54:54AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I agree that we shouldn't require it for potato. I agree that non-compliance
> with this policy probably won't be release critical. On the other hand,
> I find it hard to imagine any circumstance that would prevent fixing
> the small
On Mon, Nov 29, 1999 at 10:06:39PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Chris Waters wrote:
> > The problem with the "Enhances" idea (which several people, including
> > me, mentioned at the time) is that it puts the responsibility on the
> > wrong package.
>
> Yes and no. It's actually a n
Previously Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Where does non-US fit into this, BTW? Can we suggest stuff in
> non-US/main from stuff in main under this proposal?
Personally I like to consider main and non-US/main together as
`Debian main' (or actually just `Debian'). So I would say it
would still be allowed.
25 matches
Mail list logo
