On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 09:21:34PM +0000, 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? There is probably no single set of packages that provide the > > 'required' functionality, and there is no provision for declaring > > alternative sets, each of which meets the needs of some user, but > > which are mutually incompatible. Maybe 'required' should be a virtual > > package, rather than a priority, and the packages that implement > > 'required' are themselves virtual. ??? I don't have a solution, but I > > think there is a logical inadequacy in Policy here. > > > > But maybe wait until this is a real problem before fixing it. > > Priorities are mostly a question of "What do I put on this CD?", and > when there's a choice of two, it's not unreasonable for us to just > pick one. >
My understanding of the issue in the original post of this thread is that situations can arrise where Debian policy forbids including some package on a CD in a way that the poster thinks it should be included. I suppose he is an advocate of some package and wants it to have a better position on the supermarket shelf. The answer I'm getting to my questions seems to support the position that priorities is a somewhat arbitrary system for including some packages and excluding others. Maybe there isn't a system that is completely 'fair' to all packages. Maybe it is not possible to be completely 'fair'. Maybe its not worth the effort to try. I don't know. But I do think the priority system is something of a muddle, at least in so far as it has been documented, to my knowledge. I leave it to those who have been working the package priority issue longer than I have (about 5 hrs) to decide. -- Paul E Condon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
