Hi,
Am Sonntag, den 23.12.2012, 23:18 +0100 schrieb Wouter Verhelst:
> > With my scheme, he could install i-want-all-prof-packages and the
> > package manager will automatically install the missing -prof packages.
>
> Actually, that's not guaranteed, since your proposed
> i-want-all-prof-packages
On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 10:31:19PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Sonntag, den 23.12.2012, 22:15 +0100 schrieb Wouter Verhelst:
> > No, that's not true; a Recommends is not a Suggests.
>
> That’s not what I said. But it is a suggestion in the sense that
> installing a package without
Hi,
Am Sonntag, den 23.12.2012, 22:15 +0100 schrieb Wouter Verhelst:
> No, that's not true; a Recommends is not a Suggests.
That’s not what I said. But it is a suggestion in the sense that
installing a package without the package that is Recommends is valid.
> It seems perfectly suited for your
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 02:57:56PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Samstag, den 22.12.2012, 14:39 +0200 schrieb Andrei POPESCU:
> > On Sb, 22 dec 12, 13:17:32, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > > Users tend to fall into one of three classes:
> > > A. Users that, if they have foo-dev ins
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 22.12.2012, 12:51 -0600 schrieb Peter Samuelson:
> According to the package description, you only need the -dev package if
> you actually plan to configure the window manager instead of using its
> defaults. Which presumably most people do, so I guess the Recommends
> makes se
[Joachim Breitner]
> > And a foo-dev Recommends: foo-prof is not suitable because?
>
> because we cannot tell what the user will want. For example, a user of
> xmonad will not want -prof packages installed, and an addition 400MB of
> useless stuff on his computer is not in his, and hence our, int
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 14:57:56 +0100
Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Am Samstag, den 22.12.2012, 14:39 +0200 schrieb Andrei POPESCU:
> > On Sb, 22 dec 12, 13:17:32, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > > Users tend to fall into one of three classes:
> > > A. Users that, if they have foo-dev installed, always
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 22.12.2012, 14:39 +0200 schrieb Andrei POPESCU:
> On Sb, 22 dec 12, 13:17:32, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > Users tend to fall into one of three classes:
> > A. Users that, if they have foo-dev installed, always also want
> > foo-prof installed.
> > B. Users tha
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 14:24:46 +0100
Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Andrei POPESCU (2012-12-22 13:39:07)
> > On Sb, 22 dec 12, 13:17:32, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > > Users tend to fall into one of three classes:
> > > A. Users that, if they have foo-dev installed, always also want
> > >
Quoting Andrei POPESCU (2012-12-22 13:39:07)
> On Sb, 22 dec 12, 13:17:32, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > Users tend to fall into one of three classes:
> > A. Users that, if they have foo-dev installed, always also want
> > foo-prof installed.
> > B. Users that want to manually decid
On Sb, 22 dec 12, 13:17:32, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Users tend to fall into one of three classes:
> A. Users that, if they have foo-dev installed, always also want
> foo-prof installed.
> B. Users that want to manually decide for what packages they want
> the -prof packa
Dear developers,
I’d like to get opinions on whether it is ok to (ab)use meta packages,
alternative dependencies and conflicts to provide package selection
policy features to our users that are not supported otherwise.
Here is an example (and it is the use case that I am considering):
Haskell li
12 matches
Mail list logo
