Re: a follow up - the subject of easier installs just happened to ./

[Lamar Owen <lamar owen wgcr org>]

On Tuesday 16 July 2002 04:40 pm, Konstantin Riabitsev wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-07-16 at 16:19, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > So you do:
> > Requires: smtpdaemon
> > and be done with it.

> This is bordering on offtopic, but "smtpdaemon" does not cover all
> aspects of the /usr/sbin/sendmail. E.g. I might not need an smtp daemon,
> but I need local delivery -- requiring smtpdaemon is a misnomer in this
> case.

Postfix provides 'MTA' -- but sendmail doesn't as yet.  This would be the 
generic -- if you need an MTA, you Require MTA and be done with it.

> > If alternative packages provide a common pseudo-package such as
> > smtpdaemon, then you don't need file dependencies.  However, explicit
> > provides of names that appear to be files may not be a problem, either.

> > The 'smptdaemon' example above is what I have been calling 'package'
> > dependencies -- that may or may not be canonically correct terminology.

> Wouldn't that be creating MORE complexity, vs. LESS complexity?

The whole alternatives system (borrowed from Debian) adds complexity in and of 
itself.  As long as the alternative packages provide the same things, you are 
OK.  And that goes to packaging errors.

It's really a matter of clean dependency information, which is the 
responsibility of the packager(s).
-- 
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11