El vie, 26-10-2012 a las 21:37 +0200, Stefan Pendl escribió: > Am 26.10.2012 21:26, schrieb Carlos R. Pasqualini: > > > > Thank you guys but it's not exactly what i mean... > > > > As i can see you are saying: > > > > 'this package depends on libreoffice unless msoffice is installed' > > > > If MS Office is removed, then Libre Office is installed, that was what > you asked.
yes, but you put it on another package's dependencies... i want a way to say 'libreoffice conflicts with msoffice' in the libreoffice package definition, and 'msoffice conflicts with libreoffice' on the msoffice definition. > I don't think we need to make things more complicated, I have always > succeeded using the current available dependencies. I agree with you on simple and clean dependencies schema, but at least to me, not every time i can express the dependencies as i think them. > Remove the package from the profile of the host and it gets removed, any > other package being blocked by that package will be installed afterwards. > I don't think one should create complex dependency constructs for > software deployment. what if i make a mistake when i'm selecting packages in the profile and selecting two conflicting packages? (very possible when we have profiles dependencies specified on different files). Having a conflict statement on the package definition level will reduce having troubles on user's machines. > Assign what is needed to the host and allow installation of additional > required software through dependencies, that is simple and supported. I think i'll need re-think all this issue again... may be it's just a debianism in my head limiting my think capacity Best Regards ------------------------------------------------------------------------- wpkg-users mailing list archives >> http://lists.wpkg.org/pipermail/wpkg-users/ _______________________________________________ wpkg-users mailing list wpkg-users@lists.wpkg.org http://lists.wpkg.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkg-users
