On Tue, 2002-05-21 at 23:55, A.J. Rossini wrote:
ville> Another idea; when package A does not _require_ package
B, but having B
ville> around would bring in some extra goodies to A's functionality; a
ville> RECOMMENDS feature could help. Again, maybe versioned as said above.
ville> There's already some discussion about this in [3]. Oh, and then a
ville> (versioned?) CONFLICTS relation between packages that don't coexist
ville> nicely...
Up to here sounds good. However, CONFLICTS is tricky. What one would
desire is for CONFLICT to prevent or warn about packages being
required w/o others being unloaded, or some to that effect, since
different peopls could want different sets of packages (or same user,
at different times under different tasks).
Yes, at least CONFLICTS should be handled with care. An example case
would be packages "skk" (the one we have) and "ddskk" [1]. I
don't
really know anything about these except that Red Hat is replacing the
official XEmacs skk package with ddskk in their RPMs. Maybe these two
would really conflict?
[1] <
http://openlab.ring.gr.jp/skk/>
--
Ville Skyttä
ville.skytta(a)xemacs.org