Olivier Galibert <galibert(a)pobox.com> writes:
> On Wed, May 06, 1998 at 05:25:09PM +0200, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
>> Olivier Galibert <galibert(a)pobox.com> writes:
>> > In *this* case what we have to fix is the dependency. We should have a
>> > "dependency overrride" flag, but *not* set it by default.
>>
>> Or, maybe we should do what Debian does, which is distinguish between
>> "suggesting" a package and "requiring" it. When package A requires
>> package B, it means it will be useless without it. OTOH, when package
>> A suggests package B, it means that it will run without it, but (say)
>> with less features.
> This would be nice, too. And does not preclude the flag existence,
> which is a necessity (un-overridable package systems simply aren't
> usable). Steve, can this "suggest/require" distinction fit nicely in
> what you have ?
I think so. Right now the dependencies are tuned _only_ for
bytecompilation.