Re: Let's CENSOR it! (was: Uploaded anarchism 7.5-1 (source all) to master)
On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 1999 at 11:52:08AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > > in any case, he ended up solving it in his own way. it wasn't the same
> > > as your way, but it did the job.
> >
> > Again, this is not true, or you are still mixing completely different
> > things, or you are missing the point.
> >
> > The X font packages do not upgrade automatically.
>
> that depends on what install method you use.
If it depends on the install method I use, then they do not upgrade
automatically.
Every install method should be supported, not only APT, not only
"autoup.sh", and not only your favourite install method.
> $ dpkg -s xfonts-base
> [snipped]
>
> branden has correctly used the Replaces, Conflicts, and Provides tags in
> the control file. this is the correct solution according to the debian
> developer documentation.
This is a common misunderstanding. Just using Replaces, Conflicts,
and Provides does not make everything to work in a "magical" way.
The developer documentation does not say this makes dselect to select for
install the new packages and deselect the old ones, because in fact
dselect does not do that. Using those fields just means that *when* you
install the new ones, the old ones are automatically removed by dpkg, but
you have to select the new packages by hand in the first place.
> i believe there is a bug in apt which doesn't process these correctly.
> that is a bug in apt which needs to be fixed.
APT does the right thing here. Just because a package conflicts, replaces
and provides another one does not mean that you always have to install it
and remove the other one.
In either case, if this were an APT bug, it would be a bug in every
dselect method.
So the conflicts, replaces and provides does not solve the problem.
> IMO, cluttering the dist with non-essential empty packages is not a good
> "solution".
We don't need a "good" solution, we just need *a* solution.
If the dummy packages are empty, I fail to see how do they clutter
"clutter" the distribution.
It is better to end up having a few empty packages that I can remove (the
same way we remove a library when it is no longer needed) than to end up
having some required packages in "obsolete" state, the user might think
they are not required for him/her, remove them, and lose their
functionality.
I have not seen a better solution than the dummy packages, so, as of
today, there is no better solution.
Either this is solved or it is not solved, but not solving it because we
"dislike" the only solution available is not very different from
censorship.
Sorry.
> I am aware of the fact that you disagree, and this issue has been
> flogged to death in the recent past so lets not start it again now.
I agree, let's not start it again by saying it has been solved by using
conflicts replaces and provides, they do not solve the problem.
Thanks.
--
"b5e147c59f3f05bfb690b42328272774" (a truly random sig)
Reply to: