"ext Guillem Jover" <[email protected]> writes: > Hmm, even if I agree with the sentiment, I don't really like the idea of > hardcoding those directories in u-a. dpkg is used outside Debian and > the policy or paths there might be different.
Yes. > 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. So the idea is that a package has a better idea of which alternatives are optional for it than policy? Yes, I agree. But if we require packages to be updated, wouldn't it be enough if they ignored errors reported by update-alternatives for optional alternatives? 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. Thanks for the considerations! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
