Dale Scheetz writes ("Re: New virtual package names. "):
>... Part of my concerns stem from the past history of ae. I have
> only recently taken over the maintainance of this package. When I got it,
> the essential field had been declaired a bug, but the discussion of that
> bug seemed to indicate that removal of the essential flag was not a
> sufficient solution. In addition, I am concerned by the fact that this
> field was only added to the package a couple of revisions ago, and now
> needs to be removed.
The fact that the field was added was a mistake, and it was noticed
and reported as a bug (several times, in fact). It is not surprising
that once a mistake is made people ask for it to be unmade again.
I didn't see anything in that discussion to think that the removal of
the essential flag wasn't a full solution. I saw several people with
the `hammer and nail' problem: `we have dependencies so we must use
them here'.
> I don't see any difference, in principle, between an editor and a
> mail-delivery-agent. They are both programs that deliver specific
> functionality. The only differnce I can see is that an editor may not be
> viewed as being as critical to system operations as the other, and Ian has
> pointed out that users are likely to be more aware of their needs for an
> editor than they are for other dependant programs. I am pretty sure that
> we have users who are not this aware, but that is not the basis for my
> feelings here.
If we have users who are not aware of this then they will not be
satisfied by `vi' or `ed' either - and these programs will have to
satisfy the dependency. We can't solve this problem with the
dependency mechanism.
> Ae is in the base package because it was deemed necessary to have an
> editor in the system, and ae was small enough to fit. It is this necessity
> that is driving the editor virtual package dependance as the proposed
> solution. If it is not necessary for the system to contain an editor, then
> why is one in the base system?
The base system is provided as a tool for installing the rest of the
packages, and is supposed to be a sensible default.
Both the essential flag and the dependency mechanism actually
_prevent_ the user from doing something, and we should only do this if
we really mean it.
>... If it is necessary for an editor to be on
> the system, it seems desirable to provide protections from the inadvertant
> removal of all editors. If there is a better way to insure the existance
> of an editor on the system, I would be happy to hear it.
What terrible thing do you think will happen if the user removes all
their editors ? They'll sit there wanting to edit a file and think
Damn, I can't figure out why I can't edit this file. I just sit
here blankly and wonder how I used to edit files.
?
> In addition, it is not clear to me that being unnecessary is the same as
> undesirable. I can be convinced (no, really!) of either position at this
> point. I just need a little more 'splaining.
For it to be right for us to do this there has to be a good reason in
favour of it. It is not sufficient for it merely to be neutral.
In any case, it isn't neutral: it is a lot of work, and while the work
is done silly things will happen like users being forced to install
particular editors to satisfy the dependency scheme.
Ian.
