Enrique Zanardi writes: >On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 10:22:39AM +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> Am I missing something here? Where does it say that users should be able >> to install _all_ optional packages? > >The policy manual suggests that: > >"2.2 Priorities >[...] > optional > (In a sense everything is optional that isn't required, but > that's not what is meant here.) This is all the software that > you might reasonably want to install if you didn't know what it > was or don't have specialised requirements. This is a much > larger system and includes X11, a full TeX distribution, and > lots of applications. > > extra > This contains packages that conflict with others with higher > priorities, or are only likely to be useful if you already know > what they are or have specialised requirements. >" > >By the definition of optional, a user may install all optional packages >if she doesn't know what they are (!) or don't have specialised >requirements. > >If there are optional packages that conflict with each other, we should >choose one to stay in optional and move the others to extra. (Or change/ >clarify the definition on the policy manual).
The manual should be fixed IMHO - there are lots of places where this is bogus. Consider the xserver packages, for example... -- Steve McIntyre, CURS CCE, Cambridge, UK. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Getting a SCSI chain working is perfectly simple if you remember that there must be exactly three terminations: one on one end of the cable, one on the far end, and the goat, terminated over the SCSI chain with a silver-handled knife whilst burning *black* candles. --- Anthony DeBoer