Hi,
I'd like my em8300 package's dependencies to say something like "If you
use udev, I'd recommend you use at least 0.060-1." (since specific rules
for the em8300 drivers were added in that release, tahnks to Marco
d'Itri).
Unfortunately, the package system certainly can't guess whether udev
On 26-Jul-2005, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
> I'd like my em8300 package's dependencies to say something like "If you
> use udev, I'd recommend you use at least 0.060-1."
> [...]
> I would translate it to "I'd recommend you have either no udev
> installed, or at least version 0.060-1.".
> [...]
> "Reco
* Ben Finney [Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:03:51 +1000]:
> > "Recommends: udev (>= 0.060-1)".
> How does this not express what you want to say? It recommends a
> minimum version of the package, and allows for no installation of the
> package.
But does not prevent a lower version from being co-installed
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 11:03:51AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> On 26-Jul-2005, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
> > I'd like my em8300 package's dependencies to say something like "If you
> > use udev, I'd recommend you use at least 0.060-1."
> > [...]
> > I would translate it to "I'd recommend you have
On 27-Jul-2005, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 11:03:51AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > On 26-Jul-2005, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
> > > "Recommends: udev (>= 0.060-1)".
> >
> > How does this not express what you want to say? It recommends a
> > minimum version of the package, and all
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 09:46:42AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> Yes, I think I understand what you want.
>
> You want something that is a non-imperative equivalent to
>
> "Conflicts: udev (<< 0.060-1)"
>
> i.e. one that wouldn't force the result, but would recommend it.
That's it.
>
* Nicolas Boullis [Wed, 27 Jul 2005 00:27:07 +0200]:
> And conflicting with udev (<< 0.060-1) isn't satisfactory either, since
> some people may be happy with an old udev. (They only would have devices
> files attributed to the root group rather than the video group, unless
> they are able to c
Nicolas Boullis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh, and I just thought there could be a workaround. I could make a new
> no-udev empty package that conflicts with udev, and then write
> "Recommends: no-udev | udev (>= 0.060-1)".
An elegant solution ;-)
> I guess this would behave as expected, but
Hi.
Nicolas Boullis wrote:
> If there's currently no way to set up such things, it might be worth
> suggesting to add such a feature to next-generation .deb format. Don't
> you think so?
To be honest, no.
If you do a Recommends: udev (>= ...), most people will just install the
recommended udev a
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Frank Küster wrote:
> Nicolas Boullis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Oh, and I just thought there could be a workaround. I could make a new
> > no-udev empty package that conflicts with udev, and then write
> > "Recommends: no-udev | udev (>= 0.060-1)".
>
> An elegant solutio
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 09:57:35AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Nicolas Boullis wrote:
> > If there's currently no way to set up such things, it might be worth
> > suggesting to add such a feature to next-generation .deb format. Don't
> > you think so?
> To be honest, no.
> If yo
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 11:22:44AM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Frank Küster wrote:
> > Nicolas Boullis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Oh, and I just thought there could be a workaround. I could make a new
> > > no-udev empty package that conflicts with udev, and then
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 11:22 -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Frank Küster wrote:
> > Nicolas Boullis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Oh, and I just thought there could be a workaround. I could make a new
> > > no-udev empty package that conflicts with udev, and then write
> > >
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 07:12:16AM +1000, skaller wrote:
>
> Two methods, one is not tenable:
>
> (a) X conflicts with no-X implicitly
> (b) When Y depends on no-X, if Y is installed, no-X is
> synthesised and installed too if it doesn't exist,
> (and conflicting with X to prevent X bei
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 01:01 +0200, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
> > The reason a logical 'X isn't installed' does not
> > work is that you could install Y, which depends
> > on no X, and then just install X. Now Y is silently
> > broken by a package that knows nothing about Y.
>
> As far as I know, su
Hi.
Nicolas Boullis wrote:
> I'd rather set no recommendation at all, or conflict with old
> udev...
The former, by the way, makes perfect sense for something that isn't
absolutely required and will be a complete non-issue when the package is
released (even in a few weeks time) along with the res
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, skaller wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 11:22 -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
<...>
Can dpkg/apt/etc. be tweaked to automatically Provides: no-* ?
Two methods, one is not tenable:
(a) X conflicts with no-X implicitly
no-X doesn't really "conflicts" with X, there is an
exclusive
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 08:17:16AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Nicolas Boullis wrote:
> > I'd rather set no recommendation at all, or conflict with old
> > udev...
> The former, by the way, makes perfect sense for something that isn't
> absolutely required and will be a complete
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 16:14 -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
> solved above by keeping track of packages which should not be
> installed
I suggested a simple way to do this: actually install a no-X
package. There may indeed be a better way than this.
The important thing to realise is that Debian is in
> The important thing to realise is that Debian is in fact
> seriously flawed and needs to be fixed!
>
> I hope that (a) the need for a mutual exclusion guarantee
> is not in dispute and (b) that the existing unilateral
> declaration of such an exclusion by the 'Conflicts'
> declaration in a packa
skaller wrote on 28/07/2005 01:18:
> On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 01:01 +0200, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
>>As far as I know, such things already happen with conflicts: let foo
>>conflict with bar. If you install foo first, everything is fine. Later,
>>if you install bar, foo is broken by bar, while bar knows
On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 20:08 +0200, Sven Mueller wrote:
> > Ouch! I see. Being a math type person I tried to see
> > if there were a proper extension. However I didn't
> > go back to consider whether Debian itself was broken.
> >
> > The assumption here is that Conflicts is a symmetric
> > relation
skaller wrote:
> The problem is that you CAN install a package B which declares a
> conflict with A, and then install A, which does not declare the
> conflict. The conflict exists, nevertheless.
This isn't true. If B is installed and B declares "Conflicts: A" then
dpkg will refuse to install pac
On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 08:55 -0700, Matt Brubeck wrote:
> skaller wrote:
>
> > The problem is that you CAN install a package B which declares a
> > conflict with A, and then install A, which does not declare the
> > conflict. The conflict exists, nevertheless.
>
> This isn't true. If B is install
skaller wrote on 30/07/2005 19:08:
> On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 08:55 -0700, Matt Brubeck wrote:
>>You can test this yourself to see that it works correctly. For example,
>>try to install "cfengine2" (Conflicts: cfengine) and then "cfengine".
>
>
> I'll take your word for it .. in this case, why is the
On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 01:39 +0200, Sven Mueller wrote:
> skaller wrote on 30/07/2005 19:08:
> > On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 08:55 -0700, Matt Brubeck wrote:
> >>You can test this yourself to see that it works correctly. For example,
> >>try to install "cfengine2" (Conflicts: cfengine) and then "cfengine
26 matches
Mail list logo
