On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 15:05:22 +0200, Marius Vollmer wrote: > Guillem Jover <guil...@debian.org> writes: > > I think it would be better to add a new option --slave-optional (or a > > similar and better name), and change the callers to use that. > > But if we require packages to be updated, wouldn't it be enough if they > ignored errors reported by update-alternatives for optional > alternatives?
They can do that already if all the names to be set are optional (all --install and all --slave). But not the case when --install is mandatory but some --slave are not. > But even if it would be enough, making the situation more explicit with > --slave-optional might be better. > > So, I agree with the option. I'll make a patch when I find the time. That'd be great. thanks, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
