On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 10:11:45 +0100
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ricardo Mones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >
> > IMHO pkg-data package should also include an «Enhances: pkg» in
> > addition to the suggest. Both fields with some partial string
> > matching on the package names could make some frontend realize the
> > kind of relation between the packages.
> >
> > regards,
>
> I don't think that is very usefull. Enhances is to see what makes foo
> better. But foo depends on foo-data and there is no getting better by
> installing foo-data. It is required already. I think enhances should
> be left for optional stuff so frontends can present the user with a
> good list of extras without also listing requirements.
I was thinking more in the opposite, foo doesn't depend on foo-data
(because is optional data, e.g. localization packages) and foo-data
depends on foo, the [*] addition below, which I think summarizes the
possibilities I've understood to avoid circular dependencies while
keeping some relation among packages:
| foo | foo-data
---------------------+----------------------+-------------------------
foo needs foo-data | Depends: foo-data | Suggests: foo
---------------------+----------------------+-------------------------
foo may use foo-data | Recommends: foo-data | Depends: foo
foo-data useless | | Enhances: foo [*]
without foo | |
---------------------+----------------------+-------------------------
foo may use foo-data | Recommends: foo-data | Suggests: foo
foo-data useful | | Enhances: foo [*]
without foo | |
The Enhances would add an extra meaning to explain why foo-data
package is either Depending or Suggesting foo, which in these cases is
not the usual Depend meaning IMHO: the data doesn't really need
anything to work :)
regards,
P.S.: Don't need to Cc: me, I'm subscribed to the lists where I post.
--
Ricardo Mones
~
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but
that's not why we do it. Richard Feynman
