On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 05:27:21PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > There are precedents for such package, namely harden-servers and > harden-clients > What alternative to the use of Conflicts would you suggest ?
I didn't know about these, interesting packages. Seems fine to me, since you'd never get this package causing dist-upgrade errors, or conflicting with essential packages. They're mostly leaf packages, as far as I can tell. Either way, I'd like to make this perfectly clear. Could you please either allow or disallow such relations in the examples? I read the policy around use of Conflicts to help create archive-wide consistency. In particular, the node.js vs ax25-node case showed that we're willing to cause plenty of pain in our packaging work to ensure that the archive is self-consistent, and our Conflicts and Breaks relations are there for the right reasons. I don't see a systemd-must-die package (conflicting with a core part of the Distro) as being productive, helpful or necessary. I definitely don't see it as there for the right reason. In particular, this hack (abusing Conflicts) can be done with Apt pinning in a much better way (sure dpkg won't catch it, but if you're telling dpkg to explicity install something...), that will actually work. If this case isn't special enough to be in policy (which may be fair, given harden-*), we can get a specific ruling on it with another team. Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paul...@debian.org> | Proud Debian Developer : :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~paultag `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
