Re: Should we allow packages to depend on packages with lower priority values?

2003-12-11 Thread Paul E Condon
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 09:21:34PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 12:13:32PM -0700, Paul E Condon wrote: > > So, using your example, shouldn't there be a virtual package "dawk" > > (Debian awk) that is 'required' > > Virtual packages do not have priorities. > > > My point

Re: Should we allow packages to depend on packages with lower priority values?

2003-12-11 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 12:13:32PM -0700, Paul E Condon wrote: > So, using your example, shouldn't there be a virtual package "dawk" > (Debian awk) that is 'required' Virtual packages do not have priorities. > My point? There is probably no single set of packages that provide the > 'required' fun

Re: Should we allow packages to depend on packages with lower priority values?

2003-12-11 Thread Paul E Condon
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 06:08:05PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote: > On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 09:31:49AM -0700, Paul E Condon wrote: > [...] > > I've just read Policy on this issue again, and more carefully. I think > > Policy is slightly broken, in its description of 'extra' > > > 1. Extra can inclu

Re: Should we allow packages to depend on packages with lower priority values?

2003-12-11 Thread Andreas Metzler
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 09:31:49AM -0700, Paul E Condon wrote: [...] > I've just read Policy on this issue again, and more carefully. I think > Policy is slightly broken, in its description of 'extra' > 1. Extra can include packages that conflict with packages in > 'required'. How can such packag

Re: Should we allow packages to depend on packages with lower priority values?

2003-12-11 Thread Bastian Blank
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 03:17:19PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > I don't see other reasons behind the requirement, but am of course > open to arguments. Did I overlook something? We work on dependency resolving while bootstraping the system. parsing the whole Packages files needs at least 6mb additio

Re: Should we allow packages to depend on packages with lower priority values?

2003-12-11 Thread Paul E Condon
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 03:17:19PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > Policy 2.5 says that packages must not depend on packages with lower > priority values. From what I tried to research, that rule is meant to > allow CD builders to build "Debian foo standard" CDs containing > required, important and stan

Re: draft proposal for a new web server policy

2003-12-11 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 07:43:29AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > In the default configuration, web servers shall bind to localhost only > (okay, that's are more general policy issue affecting all network > services). um, that's a completely separate Policy proposal; i don't think it helps anyone

Re: draft proposal for a new web server policy

2003-12-11 Thread Florian Weimer
Joey Hess wrote: > - Any others? In the default configuration, web servers shall bind to localhost only (okay, that's are more general policy issue affecting all network services).