Re: Bug#29874: optional packages that should be extra

1999-02-01 Thread Joseph Carter
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 01:26:03AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote: > > * To decide which of the two is better, cooler, or nicer, and mark the > > other as extra. > > > > * Or to repackage them so that they are compatible, like pgp-i and pgp-us > > (update-alternatives is our friend). > > Or more likely w

Re: Bug#29874: optional packages that should be extra

1999-02-01 Thread Joey Hess
Santiago Vila wrote: > * To decide which of the two is better, cooler, or nicer, and mark the > other as extra. > > * Or to repackage them so that they are compatible, like pgp-i and pgp-us > (update-alternatives is our friend). Or more likely when the first option fails in a flame war and the se

Re: Bug#29874: optional packages that should be extra

1999-01-30 Thread Manoj Srivastava
Hi, >>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Santiago> On 27 Jan 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> I must confess that even I thought the the policy statement >> meant that one should be able to install all optional packages >> simultaneously. Santiago> I think this is exact

Re: Bug#29874: optional packages that should be extra

1999-01-29 Thread Santiago Vila
On 27 Jan 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > I must confess that even I thought the the policy statement > meant that one should be able to install all optional packages > simultaneously. I think this is exactly the idea Ian Jackson had in mind when he wrote those definitions, and I think w

Re: Bug#29874: optional packages that should be extra

1999-01-28 Thread Manoj Srivastava
Hi, >>"Joseph" == Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Joseph> On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 05:53:58PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> I must confess that even I thought the the policy statement meant >> that one should be able to install all optional packages >> simultaneously. Joseph> Th

Re: Bug#29874: optional packages that should be extra

1999-01-28 Thread Joseph Carter
On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 05:53:58PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > I must confess that even I thought the the policy statement > meant that one should be able to install all optional packages > simultaneously. > > Though this is a laudable goal, and indeed, was once > achievable,

Re: Bug#29874: optional packages that should be extra

1999-01-27 Thread Manoj Srivastava
Hi, I must confess that even I thought the the policy statement meant that one should be able to install all optional packages simultaneously. Though this is a laudable goal, and indeed, was once achievable, but with all the packages that we have now (pushing on to 3000), I d

Re: Bug#29874: optional packages that should be extra

1999-01-27 Thread Santiago Vila
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Richard Braakman wrote: > reassign 29874 debian-policy > thanks > > Santiago Vila wrote: > > > Policy says: > > > > optional[...] This is all the software that you might reasonably > > want to install if you didn't know what it was or don't have > > specialised