On Sat, 2012-01-07 at 10:38:04 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > I agree we should advertise equivs more as it is the most flexible > solution. But until it is discoverable from (not to mention integrated > with) package managers, I doubt we can make a dent in the number of > people who will get stuck with this.
> All in all, having *some* dummy packages in the archive to fulfill > dependencies in non standard setups would cost us very little and save > quite some time for our power users. It will also have the extra > benefit that we keep a tighter control on the existence of such dummy > packages and on their naming, instead of having tons of equivs generated > packages on user machines with random versioning scheme. This aspect > will make easier actions such as removing those packages in future > Debian releases, when we find a better solution. Steve has already mentioned on the sibling post how those dummy packages are a bad idea on the archive, but I just wanted to point out how this would be even worse when integrated with the package manager, as that would imply easy user accessible bypass of the whole dependency system. We might as well enable --force-depends all the time. regards, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120109052605.gb23...@gaara.hadrons.org
