Hi,
Thorsten Glaser:
> >> You have not yet explained why apt pinning is not enough.
>
> Simply because apt is not the only way to install packages.
>
Don't synaptic and/or whatever honor these pins too?
> Right. Furthermore, pinning can be used by the local admin,
> without namespacing pin priorities or somesuch, so it’s not
> something packages should do.
>
Since you don't need a package for creating a pin entry anyway, this is a
non-argument.
Why would you want to need a namespace for pin priorities?
-1 is sufficient to block installation and therefore doesn't conflict
with any other rules. What else would you need?
> There is another benefit: conflicting packages allow all
> package managers’ resolvers to find nice dependency chains,
… esp. since their dependency resolution algorithm ends up removing the
blocker package. As soon as there's the slightest hint of a conflict
*anywhere* in the dependency chain. Aptitude is notorious for this.
… unless you add a pin. In which case you can add a pin to prevent
systemd{,sysv} from installing anyway.
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140703110025.gb23...@smurf.noris.de
