On Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 01:05:08PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:25:07 -0700, Paul E Condon
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >My understanding of the issue in the original post of this thread is
> >that situations can arrise where Debian policy forbids i
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'
>
> Virt
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
scripts that walk the full dependency/
conflicts-with database and discovers pairs of packages that conflict
with each other only in that they each depend on other packages that
conflict with each other. Lump them all into 'extra' and offer support
for discovering just what the problem is for each of them.
For example, if there became available an alternative Windowing System
that conflicted with X, that would require demoting X form 'optional'
to 'extra'.
I hope this problem can remain 'un-fixed' for a while. IMHO it is
messy.
--
Paul E Condon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
4 matches
Mail list logo
