On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 04:18:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 03:17:19PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> > Let A and B both be packages that provide virtual package C. A is the
> > default C in Debian, and is therefore Priority: important. A depends
> > on E and F, which must
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 06:01:17 -0700, Paul E Condon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From my experience as a user, package categories complicate user
>understanding without any apparent benefit. When I first read about
>them I was puzzled as to why they exist. My current thinking is that
>they somehow sim
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 including some
> >package on
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 including some
>package on a CD in a way that the poster thinks it should be
>included. I suppos
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 03:17:19PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> Let A and B both be packages that provide virtual package C. A is the
> default C in Debian, and is therefore Priority: important. A depends
> on E and F, which must be Priority: important as well, as required by
> current Policy.
>
> No
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 05:25:07PM -0700, Paul E Condon wrote:
> 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.
Meh. They're hint
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 'extra'
>
> 1. Extra can include packages that conflict with packages in
> 'required'. How can such packages b
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'
>
> Virtual packages do not have priorities.
>
> > My point
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' fun
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 'extra'
>
> > 1. Extra can inclu
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 'extra'
> 1. Extra can include packages that conflict with packages in
> 'required'. How can such packag
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 03:17:19PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> I don't see other reasons behind the requirement, but am of course
> open to arguments. Did I overlook something?
We work on dependency resolving while bootstraping the system. parsing
the whole Packages files needs at least 6mb additio
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 03:17:19PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> Policy 2.5 says that packages must not depend on packages with lower
> priority values. From what I tried to research, that rule is meant to
> allow CD builders to build "Debian foo standard" CDs containing
> required, important and stan
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 12:56:07 +0100 (CET), Santiago Vila
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Because the fact that there should not be conflicts among optional or
>higher packages often forces Debian to choose which one, among a set
>of packages which conflict at each other, should be the optional or
>the st
Marc Haber wrote:
> Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Marc Haber wrote:
> >> Policy 2.5 says that packages must not depend on packages with lower
> >> priority values. From what I tried to research, that rule is meant to
> >> allow CD builders to build "Debian foo stan
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 17:21:28 +0100 (CET), Santiago Vila
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Marc Haber wrote:
>> Policy 2.5 says that packages must not depend on packages with lower
>> priority values. From what I tried to research, that rule is meant to
>> allow CD builders to build "De
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Marc Haber wrote:
> Policy 2.5 says that packages must not depend on packages with lower
> priority values. From what I tried to research, that rule is meant to
> allow CD builders to build "Debian foo standard" CDs containing
> required, important and standard packages, guaran
Hi Marc,
> Today, it is trivial to build dependency-complete "Debian standard"
> CDs by including required, important and standard packages and
> following down the dependency chain.
I had to read the mail twice to understand your point :)
> I don't see other reasons behind the requirement, but
Policy 2.5 says that packages must not depend on packages with lower
priority values. From what I tried to research, that rule is meant to
allow CD builders to build "Debian foo standard" CDs containing
required, important and standard packages, guaranteed that all
dependencies are satisfied just f
19 matches
Mail list logo
