Debian bug report logs - #421 unreasonable restriction on term Package: term ; Reported by: Raul Miller ; 260 days old . ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message received at debian-bugs: From irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de!sr1 Tue Sep 19 05:32:58 1995 Return-Path: Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0sv1r7-00063ZC; Tue, 19 Sep 95 05:32 PDT Received: from irz101.inf.tu-dresden.de by pixar.com with SMTP id AA12768 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for debian-bugs-pipe@mongo.pixar.com); Tue, 19 Sep 1995 05:32:35 -0700 Received: by irz101.inf.tu-dresden.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) id OAA29148; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 14:31:41 +0200 Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 14:31:41 +0200 From: sr1@irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de (Sven Rudolph) Message-Id: <199509191231.OAA29148@irz101.inf.tu-dresden.de> To: debian-bugs@pixar.com Cc: jimr@simons-rock.edu X-Debian-Pr: quiet Subject: Re: Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term You already changed the DEPENDS to RECOMMENDED, so the problem is solved and you should close the bug. (It might make sense to invent a name for a dialer virtual package, but you have to ask debian-devel about it.) Please write me if you believe that I got somthing wrong. Sven -- Sven Rudolph (sr1@inf.tu-dresden.de); WWW : http://www.sax.de/~sr1/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Acknowledgement sent to sr1@irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de (Sven Rudolph) : Extra info received and filed, but not forwarded. Full text available. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Bug assigned to package `term'. Request was from iwj10@thor.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson) to debian-bugs-request@pixar.com . Full text available. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message received at debian-bugs: From cus.cam.ac.uk!iwj10 Sat Feb 18 08:32:04 1995 Return-Path: Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0rfs4h-0002DDC; Sat, 18 Feb 95 08:32 PST Received: from bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk by pixar.com with SMTP id AA03324 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Sat, 18 Feb 1995 08:32:35 -0800 Received: by bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk (Smail-3.1.29.0 #26) id m0rfs4W-000BzgC; Sat, 18 Feb 95 16:31 GMT Received: by chiark (Smail3.1.28.1 #3) id m0rfYcI-0002g8Z; Fri, 17 Feb 95 19:45 GMT Message-Id: Date: Fri, 17 Feb 95 19:45 GMT From: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson) To: debian-bugs@pixar.com Subject: Re: Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term In-Reply-To: <9502171430.AA13891@bb29c.mdd.comm.mot.com> References: <9502171430.AA13891@bb29c.mdd.comm.mot.com> Bill Mitchell writes ("Re: Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term"): > iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson) said: > > [...] dselect will > > not invoke dpkg with any --force options, so anyone who has to work > > around bad DEPENDS (and CONFLICTS) lines will have to install things > > manually. > > Arguably a good thing, if dselect intended primarily as a tool for > novices. [...] Well, quite. However, there are quite a few things that dselect will be able to do that dpkg can't - mainly the automatic management of the selection/installation/deinstallation process. I don't expect most users - even experts - to have to be familiar with dpkg once dselect works correctly. They may even be unaware of its existence ... Ian. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message sent: From: iwj@cam-orl.co.uk (Ian Jackson) To: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson) Subject: Bug#421: Info received (was Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term) In-Reply-To: References: Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding this problem report. It has been forwarded to the developers to accompany the original report. If you wish to continue submit further information on your problem, please do the same thing again: send it to debian-bugs@pixar.com, ensuring that the Subject line starts with "Bug#421" or "Re: Bug#421" so that we can identify it as relating to the same problem. Please do not to reply to the address at the top of this message, unless you wish to report a problem with the bug-tracking system. Ian Jackson (maintainer, debian-bugs) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message sent to debian-devel@pixar.com: Subject: Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term Reply-To: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson), debian-bugs@pixar.com Resent-To: debian-devel@pixar.com Resent-From: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson) Resent-Sender: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk Resent-Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 16:48:04 GMT Resent-Message-ID: X-Debian-PR-Package: X-Debian-PR-Keywords: Received: via spool for debian-bugs; Sat, 18 Feb 1995 16:48:04 GMT Received: with rfc822 via encapsulated-mail id 02181633158699; Sat, 18 Feb 1995 16:33:16 GMT Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0rfs4h-0002DDC; Sat, 18 Feb 95 08:32 PST Received: from bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk by pixar.com with SMTP id AA03324 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Sat, 18 Feb 1995 08:32:35 -0800 Received: by bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk (Smail-3.1.29.0 #26) id m0rfs4W-000BzgC; Sat, 18 Feb 95 16:31 GMT Received: by chiark (Smail3.1.28.1 #3) id m0rfYcI-0002g8Z; Fri, 17 Feb 95 19:45 GMT Message-Id: Date: Fri, 17 Feb 95 19:45 GMT From: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson) To: debian-bugs@pixar.com In-Reply-To: <9502171430.AA13891@bb29c.mdd.comm.mot.com> References: <9502171430.AA13891@bb29c.mdd.comm.mot.com> Bill Mitchell writes ("Re: Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term"): > iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson) said: > > [...] dselect will > > not invoke dpkg with any --force options, so anyone who has to work > > around bad DEPENDS (and CONFLICTS) lines will have to install things > > manually. > > Arguably a good thing, if dselect intended primarily as a tool for > novices. [...] Well, quite. However, there are quite a few things that dselect will be able to do that dpkg can't - mainly the automatic management of the selection/installation/deinstallation process. I don't expect most users - even experts - to have to be familiar with dpkg once dselect works correctly. They may even be unaware of its existence ... Ian. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message received at debian-bugs: From mdd.comm.mot.com!mitchell Fri Feb 17 06:33:23 1995 Return-Path: Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0rfTkH-0005syC; Fri, 17 Feb 95 06:33 PST Received: from motgate.mot.com by pixar.com with SMTP id AA14262 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Fri, 17 Feb 1995 06:33:54 -0800 Received: from pobox.mot.com by motgate.mot.com with SMTP (5.67b/IDA-1.4.4/MOT-3.1 for ) id AA27830; Fri, 17 Feb 1995 08:31:35 -0600 Received: from mdd.comm.mot.com (mdisea.mdd.comm.mot.com) by pobox.mot.com with SMTP (5.67b/IDA-1.4.4/MOT-3.1) id AA10127; Fri, 17 Feb 1995 08:31:13 -0600 Received: from bb29c.mdd.comm.mot.com by mdd.comm.mot.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA02386; Fri, 17 Feb 95 06:31:06 PST Received: by bb29c.mdd.comm.mot.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA13891; Fri, 17 Feb 95 06:30:57 PST Date: Fri, 17 Feb 95 06:30:57 PST From: mitchell@mdd.comm.mot.com (Bill Mitchell) Message-Id: <9502171430.AA13891@bb29c.mdd.comm.mot.com> To: debian-bugs@pixar.com, iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk Subject: Re: Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson) said: > [...] dselect will > not invoke dpkg with any --force options, so anyone who has to work > around bad DEPENDS (and CONFLICTS) lines will have to install things > manually. Arguably a good thing, if dselect intended primarily as a tool for novices. The approach is similar to putting the scissors out of reach because a child might hurt himself if allowed to get hold of them. Those who aren't novices (anyone tall enough) can use the dpkg command-line interface. Sort of like front-ending rm(1) with del(1L), which might refuse to remove unwritable files instead of asking for confirmation first. Anyone tall enough that he's outgrown del can use rm. Those not tall enough, but who have heard of rm, can stand on a box to get at it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message sent: From: iwj@cam-orl.co.uk (Ian Jackson) To: mitchell@mdd.comm.mot.com (Bill Mitchell) Subject: Bug#421: Info received (was Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term) In-Reply-To: <9502171430.AA13891@bb29c.mdd.comm.mot.com> References: <9502171430.AA13891@bb29c.mdd.comm.mot.com> Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding this problem report. It has been forwarded to the developers to accompany the original report. If you wish to continue submit further information on your problem, please do the same thing again: send it to debian-bugs@pixar.com, ensuring that the Subject line starts with "Bug#421" or "Re: Bug#421" so that we can identify it as relating to the same problem. Please do not to reply to the address at the top of this message, unless you wish to report a problem with the bug-tracking system. Ian Jackson (maintainer, debian-bugs) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message sent to debian-devel@pixar.com: Subject: Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term Reply-To: mitchell@mdd.comm.mot.com (Bill Mitchell), debian-bugs@pixar.com Resent-To: debian-devel@pixar.com Resent-From: mitchell@mdd.comm.mot.com (Bill Mitchell) Resent-Sender: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 14:48:04 GMT Resent-Message-ID: X-Debian-PR-Package: X-Debian-PR-Keywords: Received: via spool for debian-bugs; Fri, 17 Feb 1995 14:48:04 GMT Received: with rfc822 via encapsulated-mail id 021714433616234; Fri, 17 Feb 1995 14:43:37 GMT Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0rfTkH-0005syC; Fri, 17 Feb 95 06:33 PST Received: from motgate.mot.com by pixar.com with SMTP id AA14262 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Fri, 17 Feb 1995 06:33:54 -0800 Received: from pobox.mot.com by motgate.mot.com with SMTP (5.67b/IDA-1.4.4/MOT-3.1 for ) id AA27830; Fri, 17 Feb 1995 08:31:35 -0600 Received: from mdd.comm.mot.com (mdisea.mdd.comm.mot.com) by pobox.mot.com with SMTP (5.67b/IDA-1.4.4/MOT-3.1) id AA10127; Fri, 17 Feb 1995 08:31:13 -0600 Received: from bb29c.mdd.comm.mot.com by mdd.comm.mot.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA02386; Fri, 17 Feb 95 06:31:06 PST Received: by bb29c.mdd.comm.mot.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA13891; Fri, 17 Feb 95 06:30:57 PST Date: Fri, 17 Feb 95 06:30:57 PST From: mitchell@mdd.comm.mot.com (Bill Mitchell) Message-Id: <9502171430.AA13891@bb29c.mdd.comm.mot.com> To: debian-bugs@pixar.com, iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson) said: > [...] dselect will > not invoke dpkg with any --force options, so anyone who has to work > around bad DEPENDS (and CONFLICTS) lines will have to install things > manually. Arguably a good thing, if dselect intended primarily as a tool for novices. The approach is similar to putting the scissors out of reach because a child might hurt himself if allowed to get hold of them. Those who aren't novices (anyone tall enough) can use the dpkg command-line interface. Sort of like front-ending rm(1) with del(1L), which might refuse to remove unwritable files instead of asking for confirmation first. Anyone tall enough that he's outgrown del can use rm. Those not tall enough, but who have heard of rm, can stand on a box to get at it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message received at debian-bugs: From cus.cam.ac.uk!iwj10 Thu Feb 16 07:12:40 1995 Return-Path: Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0rf7sk-0006WPC; Thu, 16 Feb 95 07:12 PST Received: from bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk by pixar.com with SMTP id AA01986 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Thu, 16 Feb 1995 07:13:05 -0800 Received: by bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk (Smail-3.1.29.0 #26) id m0rf7sH-000C0FC; Thu, 16 Feb 95 15:12 GMT Received: by chiark (Smail3.1.28.1 #3) id m0rf6cd-0002g8Z; Thu, 16 Feb 95 13:51 GMT Message-Id: Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 13:51 GMT From: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson) To: debian-bugs@pixar.com Subject: Re: Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term In-Reply-To: References: Bill Mitchell writes ("Re: Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term"): > On Tue, 14 Feb 1995, Ian Jackson wrote: > > Bill Mitchell writes ("Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term"): > > > [... new dpkg's capability to force installation despite not being > > > able to satisfy DEPENDS field requirements ...] > > > > I had a bad feeling when I put in that option that people might use it > > for this kind of thing. > > > > The ONLY REASON people should have to use the --force- options > > in dpkg is to work around some kind of brokenness - either in dpkg > > itself or in a package. > > I'm not sure that's the ONLY reason. One other reason might be, > for example, for a user to install the term.deb package when he > has a comm package not "blessed" by the term maintainer by being > included among the alternatives listed on the DEPENDS control-file > line. This reminds me of Raul Miller's comment that by using a Depends line the term maintainer is making a commitment to track all of the comms packages available ... > This might be a comm package installed by dpkg from a package.deb > file, but which hasn't (yet?) been picked up in term.deb as a > "blessed" alternative dependency. It might also be a comm package > installed from sources other than a pkg.deb file, and not through > the services of dpkg. Indeed. > One other way around this would be for the user to install one > of the "blessed" comm packages to satisfy dpkg and convince it to > allow the installation of term.deb, then to remove the unwanted > comm package which had been installed for the sole purpose of > tricking dpkg. (That is, possibly, until dpkg gets smart enough > to refuse to remove packages which still have dependent packages > installed.) dpkg is already that smart - I'm afraid that ruse won't work. > [...] > When push comes to shove, the bottom line is that DEPENDS will have > whatever the package maintainer decides to put there, and that might > not be a good fit with the needs of 100.00% of all installers. In > those cases where the fit is bad, and if the user is sufficiently > clued-in to what its real import is, the dpkg --force option > provides one way around this sort of a bad fit. No, it doesn't provide a real solution. For one thing, dselect will not invoke dpkg with any --force options, so anyone who has to work around bad DEPENDS (and CONFLICTS) lines will have to install things manually. James A. Robinson writes ("Re: Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term "): > [...] > As long as there is some very definite message to the new user, > regardless of how they do the install, that it is a VERY good idea to > install a comm package with term, I am willing to do what Raul wants. > Since Ian says that dinstall will say this for sure, I am willing to > change the DEPENDS to RECOMMENDED. I would rather wait until we > actually are distributing a dinstall though, since I want to see its > output. I think you mean dselect rather than dinstall ... dselect will, if you select a package and haven't got any of its Recommended's installed, bring up a new package selection list with just the Recommended's listed and will by default select one of them for the user. There'll be a warning if they choose to override a Recommended or Depends line at this stage. (dselect doesn't enforce Depends, dpkg does, so users will be able to select things that dselect things are impossible in the hope that when the actual *.deb files are fed to dpkg things will work.) When the new C dpkg is available (after I've done with dselect) it will warn about unsatisfied Recommended fields. The current dpkg doesn't. So, with our current installation tools there won't be the warning you are looking for. However, I think that introducing brokenness in a package to get around brokenness in the packaging tools is a bad thing - the missing functionality will just have to be accepted as missing. Ian. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message sent: From: iwj@cam-orl.co.uk (Ian Jackson) To: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson) Subject: Bug#421: Info received (was Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term) In-Reply-To: References: Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding this problem report. It has been forwarded to the developers to accompany the original report. If you wish to continue submit further information on your problem, please do the same thing again: send it to debian-bugs@pixar.com, ensuring that the Subject line starts with "Bug#421" or "Re: Bug#421" so that we can identify it as relating to the same problem. Please do not to reply to the address at the top of this message, unless you wish to report a problem with the bug-tracking system. Ian Jackson (maintainer, debian-bugs) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message sent to debian-devel@pixar.com: Subject: Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term Reply-To: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson), debian-bugs@pixar.com Resent-To: debian-devel@pixar.com Resent-From: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson) Resent-Sender: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk Resent-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 15:18:07 GMT Resent-Message-ID: X-Debian-PR-Package: X-Debian-PR-Keywords: Received: via spool for debian-bugs; Thu, 16 Feb 1995 15:18:07 GMT Received: with rfc822 via encapsulated-mail id 02161514533015; Thu, 16 Feb 1995 15:14:54 GMT Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0rf7sk-0006WPC; Thu, 16 Feb 95 07:12 PST Received: from bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk by pixar.com with SMTP id AA01986 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Thu, 16 Feb 1995 07:13:05 -0800 Received: by bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk (Smail-3.1.29.0 #26) id m0rf7sH-000C0FC; Thu, 16 Feb 95 15:12 GMT Received: by chiark (Smail3.1.28.1 #3) id m0rf6cd-0002g8Z; Thu, 16 Feb 95 13:51 GMT Message-Id: Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 13:51 GMT From: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson) To: debian-bugs@pixar.com In-Reply-To: References: Bill Mitchell writes ("Re: Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term"): > On Tue, 14 Feb 1995, Ian Jackson wrote: > > Bill Mitchell writes ("Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term"): > > > [... new dpkg's capability to force installation despite not being > > > able to satisfy DEPENDS field requirements ...] > > > > I had a bad feeling when I put in that option that people might use it > > for this kind of thing. > > > > The ONLY REASON people should have to use the --force- options > > in dpkg is to work around some kind of brokenness - either in dpkg > > itself or in a package. > > I'm not sure that's the ONLY reason. One other reason might be, > for example, for a user to install the term.deb package when he > has a comm package not "blessed" by the term maintainer by being > included among the alternatives listed on the DEPENDS control-file > line. This reminds me of Raul Miller's comment that by using a Depends line the term maintainer is making a commitment to track all of the comms packages available ... > This might be a comm package installed by dpkg from a package.deb > file, but which hasn't (yet?) been picked up in term.deb as a > "blessed" alternative dependency. It might also be a comm package > installed from sources other than a pkg.deb file, and not through > the services of dpkg. Indeed. > One other way around this would be for the user to install one > of the "blessed" comm packages to satisfy dpkg and convince it to > allow the installation of term.deb, then to remove the unwanted > comm package which had been installed for the sole purpose of > tricking dpkg. (That is, possibly, until dpkg gets smart enough > to refuse to remove packages which still have dependent packages > installed.) dpkg is already that smart - I'm afraid that ruse won't work. > [...] > When push comes to shove, the bottom line is that DEPENDS will have > whatever the package maintainer decides to put there, and that might > not be a good fit with the needs of 100.00% of all installers. In > those cases where the fit is bad, and if the user is sufficiently > clued-in to what its real import is, the dpkg --force option > provides one way around this sort of a bad fit. No, it doesn't provide a real solution. For one thing, dselect will not invoke dpkg with any --force options, so anyone who has to work around bad DEPENDS (and CONFLICTS) lines will have to install things manually. James A. Robinson writes ("Re: Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term "): > [...] > As long as there is some very definite message to the new user, > regardless of how they do the install, that it is a VERY good idea to > install a comm package with term, I am willing to do what Raul wants. > Since Ian says that dinstall will say this for sure, I am willing to > change the DEPENDS to RECOMMENDED. I would rather wait until we > actually are distributing a dinstall though, since I want to see its > output. I think you mean dselect rather than dinstall ... dselect will, if you select a package and haven't got any of its Recommended's installed, bring up a new package selection list with just the Recommended's listed and will by default select one of them for the user. There'll be a warning if they choose to override a Recommended or Depends line at this stage. (dselect doesn't enforce Depends, dpkg does, so users will be able to select things that dselect things are impossible in the hope that when the actual *.deb files are fed to dpkg things will work.) When the new C dpkg is available (after I've done with dselect) it will warn about unsatisfied Recommended fields. The current dpkg doesn't. So, with our current installation tools there won't be the warning you are looking for. However, I think that introducing brokenness in a package to get around brokenness in the packaging tools is a bad thing - the missing functionality will just have to be accepted as missing. Ian. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message received at debian-bugs: From legislate.com!rdr Wed Feb 15 07:42:35 1995 Return-Path: Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0rels8-0005syC; Wed, 15 Feb 95 07:42 PST Received: from [192.77.155.4] by pixar.com with SMTP id AA19445 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Wed, 15 Feb 1995 07:43:04 -0800 Received: by [192.77.155.4] id m0rehDE-000HpUC (Debian /\oo/\ Smail3.1.29.1 #29.24); Wed, 15 Feb 95 05:44 EST Message-Id: Date: Wed, 15 Feb 95 05:44 EST From: rdr@legislate.com (Raul D. Miller) To: jimr@simons-rock.edu Cc: debian-bugs@pixar.com In-Reply-To: (jimr@simons-rock.edu) Subject: Re: Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term [Note: I don't want this to come off as a flame, because these are serious concerns I have.] My fragile ego shall take note :-) > Sure, and it takes about five minutes to write a primitive (no > scripting language) terminal emulator for Linux. So, it should > be trivial to come up with one tailored to the requirements of > term, which could be supplied with term. Would that be adequate? But your program is going to have to handle allowing the user to login to their host system (7bit or 8bit line), allow them enough of an interface to upload a copy of term source, or term setup files, and work on them. Hmm.. 7 vs. 8 bit can be dealt with using stty on the serial line. But, getting term to the remote side isn't a job for a cheap terminal emulator. On the other hand, if the remote side is well connected (which is the whole point of using term in the first place) it will probably be possible to ftp a copy of the source from some well known site. E.g. you could have a term-aid kit in some documented place in the debian archive file structure. Your also going to have to make sure it can easily deal with multiple phone numbers (for people with accounts on different machines), modem problems (BUSY signals, etc.), and probably some things I am forgetting. I was envisioning the person handling this manually. For automatic handling, it's probably better to get a package like diald. No? This is all going to have to be bundled into a package that is easy to setup and use. This seems like a job for a comm program that is standard (documented, and well supported) and debian-packaged for easy installation and setup. I'm not knocking kermit|minicom|seyon as good to use packages. I wouldn't have even noticed the requirement in my current configuration except that none of these are currently available in the debian 0.93 distribution. I didn't like the idea of changing it to RECOMMENDED, because I am sure some people who *don't* know what they are doing will sluff it off, and then complain that Debian Term [favorite expletive(s)] because they can't set it up on their remote end. This is a pretty dim view of the end user, but I happen to believe that the lowest common denominator is what we need to accommodate. Er... um... I thought you said that it took a significant amount of reading the docs and such to get term working? As long as it's all documented in one place, it's ultimately up to the user. If you are willing to make a comm program that is tailored to term, and does what I list above, I will be more then willing to bundle it with term. (In fact, it would be something to send to the current term author/maintainer, call it tdial or soemthing...) Unfortunately, I'm not going to be able to test term -- I don't have a modem. [I've been wondering about the possibility of using term to provide ip services on a machine that's in DNS -- tunnelling from my machine to one of the other machines were I have small shell accounts. But even if I pursued that avenue I wouldn't have a system which allows me to do reasonable testing. So the best I can do at the moment is offer hints, suggestions, and sample code.] [Also my idea of user friendliness is probably a bit different from most peoples. To my mind, ATDT is more user friendly than "locate whatever dialing menu this comm package has and try and figure out how to enter it, then try and figure out how to get it to send it to the modem, and then try and figure out what else it's doing that it's not telling me about".] Um... there's a lot of communications packages out there. For example, uucp has cu, which does lots of wonderful automated things and just needs a good HOWTO to document various basic configuration techniques. Ultimately, by having a REQUIRES: which ennumerates various communications packages, you're documenting that you intend to proactively track the packages which are out there and update the package every time a good alternative appears. Aside from this current "what is good?" discussion, this sounds like a lot of work (shudder). Anyways, if my vision of a minimal user interface (documented shell commands) doesn't align with your vision of term, I'll bow to your better knowledge of the kind of thing that term does. Raul D. Miller ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message sent: From: iwj@cam-orl.co.uk (Ian Jackson) To: rdr@legislate.com (Raul D. Miller) Subject: Bug#421: Info received (was Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term) In-Reply-To: References: Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding this problem report. It has been forwarded to the developers to accompany the original report. If you wish to continue submit further information on your problem, please do the same thing again: send it to debian-bugs@pixar.com, ensuring that the Subject line starts with "Bug#421" or "Re: Bug#421" so that we can identify it as relating to the same problem. Please do not to reply to the address at the top of this message, unless you wish to report a problem with the bug-tracking system. Ian Jackson (maintainer, debian-bugs) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message sent to debian-devel@pixar.com: Subject: Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term Reply-To: rdr@legislate.com (Raul D. Miller), debian-bugs@pixar.com Resent-To: debian-devel@pixar.com Resent-From: rdr@legislate.com (Raul D. Miller) Resent-Sender: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk Resent-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 16:03:01 GMT Resent-Message-ID: X-Debian-PR-Package: X-Debian-PR-Keywords: Received: via spool for debian-bugs; Wed, 15 Feb 1995 16:03:01 GMT Received: with rfc822 via encapsulated-mail id 02151548075552; Wed, 15 Feb 1995 15:48:07 GMT Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0rels8-0005syC; Wed, 15 Feb 95 07:42 PST Received: from [192.77.155.4] by pixar.com with SMTP id AA19445 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Wed, 15 Feb 1995 07:43:04 -0800 Received: by [192.77.155.4] id m0rehDE-000HpUC (Debian /\oo/\ Smail3.1.29.1 #29.24); Wed, 15 Feb 95 05:44 EST Message-Id: Date: Wed, 15 Feb 95 05:44 EST From: rdr@legislate.com (Raul D. Miller) To: jimr@simons-rock.edu Cc: debian-bugs@pixar.com In-Reply-To: (jimr@simons-rock.edu) [Note: I don't want this to come off as a flame, because these are serious concerns I have.] My fragile ego shall take note :-) > Sure, and it takes about five minutes to write a primitive (no > scripting language) terminal emulator for Linux. So, it should > be trivial to come up with one tailored to the requirements of > term, which could be supplied with term. Would that be adequate? But your program is going to have to handle allowing the user to login to their host system (7bit or 8bit line), allow them enough of an interface to upload a copy of term source, or term setup files, and work on them. Hmm.. 7 vs. 8 bit can be dealt with using stty on the serial line. But, getting term to the remote side isn't a job for a cheap terminal emulator. On the other hand, if the remote side is well connected (which is the whole point of using term in the first place) it will probably be possible to ftp a copy of the source from some well known site. E.g. you could have a term-aid kit in some documented place in the debian archive file structure. Your also going to have to make sure it can easily deal with multiple phone numbers (for people with accounts on different machines), modem problems (BUSY signals, etc.), and probably some things I am forgetting. I was envisioning the person handling this manually. For automatic handling, it's probably better to get a package like diald. No? This is all going to have to be bundled into a package that is easy to setup and use. This seems like a job for a comm program that is standard (documented, and well supported) and debian-packaged for easy installation and setup. I'm not knocking kermit|minicom|seyon as good to use packages. I wouldn't have even noticed the requirement in my current configuration except that none of these are currently available in the debian 0.93 distribution. I didn't like the idea of changing it to RECOMMENDED, because I am sure some people who *don't* know what they are doing will sluff it off, and then complain that Debian Term [favorite expletive(s)] because they can't set it up on their remote end. This is a pretty dim view of the end user, but I happen to believe that the lowest common denominator is what we need to accommodate. Er... um... I thought you said that it took a significant amount of reading the docs and such to get term working? As long as it's all documented in one place, it's ultimately up to the user. If you are willing to make a comm program that is tailored to term, and does what I list above, I will be more then willing to bundle it with term. (In fact, it would be something to send to the current term author/maintainer, call it tdial or soemthing...) Unfortunately, I'm not going to be able to test term -- I don't have a modem. [I've been wondering about the possibility of using term to provide ip services on a machine that's in DNS -- tunnelling from my machine to one of the other machines were I have small shell accounts. But even if I pursued that avenue I wouldn't have a system which allows me to do reasonable testing. So the best I can do at the moment is offer hints, suggestions, and sample code.] [Also my idea of user friendliness is probably a bit different from most peoples. To my mind, ATDT is more user friendly than "locate whatever dialing menu this comm package has and try and figure out how to enter it, then try and figure out how to get it to send it to the modem, and then try and figure out what else it's doing that it's not telling me about".] Um... there's a lot of communications packages out there. For example, uucp has cu, which does lots of wonderful automated things and just needs a good HOWTO to document various basic configuration techniques. Ultimately, by having a REQUIRES: which ennumerates various communications packages, you're documenting that you intend to proactively track the packages which are out there and update the package every time a good alternative appears. Aside from this current "what is good?" discussion, this sounds like a lot of work (shudder). Anyways, if my vision of a minimal user interface (documented shell commands) doesn't align with your vision of term, I'll bow to your better knowledge of the kind of thing that term does. Raul D. Miller ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message received at debian-bugs: From simons-rock.edu!jimr Tue Feb 14 20:53:31 1995 Return-Path: Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0rebk1-0006dfC; Tue, 14 Feb 95 20:53 PST Received: from plato.simons-rock.edu by pixar.com with SMTP id AA19404 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 14 Feb 1995 20:54:02 -0800 Received: from simons-rock.edu by plato.simons-rock.edu with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #1) id m0rebjK-00001eC; Tue, 14 Feb 95 23:52 EST Message-Id: To: Bill Mitchell , debian-bugs@pixar.com Cc: Ian Jackson Subject: Re: Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term In-Reply-To: Message from Bill Mitchell of "Tue, 14 Feb 1995 19:23:19 PST." Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 23:52:46 -0500 From: "James A. Robinson" > > This might be a comm package installed by dpkg from a package.deb > file, but which hasn't (yet?) been picked up in term.deb as a > "blessed" alternative dependency. It might also be a comm package > installed from sources other than a pkg.deb file, and not through > the services of dpkg. [....] > Ian goes on to opine that the DEPENDS entries for term should be > recast as RECOMMENDED. There's a debate on that point currently > in progress, with the term package maintainer so far steadfastly > maintaining that he'll not back off the DEPENDS category without > assurance that some satisfactorily-functional phone interface and > comm package wil be available. As long as there is some very definite message to the new user, regardless of how they do the install, that it is a VERY good idea to install a comm package with term, I am willing to do what Raul wants. Since Ian says that dinstall will say this for sure, I am willing to change the DEPENDS to RECOMMENDED. I would rather wait until we actually are distributing a dinstall though, since I want to see its output. Jim ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message sent: From: iwj@cam-orl.co.uk (Ian Jackson) To: "James A. Robinson" Subject: Bug#421: Info received (was Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term) In-Reply-To: References: Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding this problem report. It has been forwarded to the developers to accompany the original report. If you wish to continue submit further information on your problem, please do the same thing again: send it to debian-bugs@pixar.com, ensuring that the Subject line starts with "Bug#421" or "Re: Bug#421" so that we can identify it as relating to the same problem. Please do not to reply to the address at the top of this message, unless you wish to report a problem with the bug-tracking system. Ian Jackson (maintainer, debian-bugs) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message sent to debian-devel@pixar.com: Subject: Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term Reply-To: "James A. Robinson" , debian-bugs@pixar.com Resent-To: debian-devel@pixar.com Resent-From: "James A. Robinson" Resent-Sender: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk Resent-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 05:03:01 GMT Resent-Message-ID: X-Debian-PR-Package: X-Debian-PR-Keywords: Received: via spool for debian-bugs; Wed, 15 Feb 1995 05:03:01 GMT Received: with rfc822 via encapsulated-mail id 02150454399700; Wed, 15 Feb 1995 04:54:39 GMT Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0rebk1-0006dfC; Tue, 14 Feb 95 20:53 PST Received: from plato.simons-rock.edu by pixar.com with SMTP id AA19404 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 14 Feb 1995 20:54:02 -0800 Received: from simons-rock.edu by plato.simons-rock.edu with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #1) id m0rebjK-00001eC; Tue, 14 Feb 95 23:52 EST Message-Id: To: Bill Mitchell , debian-bugs@pixar.com Cc: Ian Jackson In-Reply-To: Message from Bill Mitchell of "Tue, 14 Feb 1995 19:23:19 PST." Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 23:52:46 -0500 From: "James A. Robinson" > > This might be a comm package installed by dpkg from a package.deb > file, but which hasn't (yet?) been picked up in term.deb as a > "blessed" alternative dependency. It might also be a comm package > installed from sources other than a pkg.deb file, and not through > the services of dpkg. [....] > Ian goes on to opine that the DEPENDS entries for term should be > recast as RECOMMENDED. There's a debate on that point currently > in progress, with the term package maintainer so far steadfastly > maintaining that he'll not back off the DEPENDS category without > assurance that some satisfactorily-functional phone interface and > comm package wil be available. As long as there is some very definite message to the new user, regardless of how they do the install, that it is a VERY good idea to install a comm package with term, I am willing to do what Raul wants. Since Ian says that dinstall will say this for sure, I am willing to change the DEPENDS to RECOMMENDED. I would rather wait until we actually are distributing a dinstall though, since I want to see its output. Jim ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message received at debian-bugs: From mdd.comm.mot.com!mitchell Tue Feb 14 19:51:24 1995 Return-Path: Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0realu-0005rBC; Tue, 14 Feb 95 19:51 PST Received: from motgate.mot.com by pixar.com with SMTP id AA15842 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 14 Feb 1995 19:25:08 -0800 Received: from pobox.mot.com by motgate.mot.com with SMTP (5.67b/IDA-1.4.4/MOT-3.1 for ) id AA28694; Tue, 14 Feb 1995 21:23:31 -0600 Received: from mdd.comm.mot.com (mdisea.mdd.comm.mot.com) by pobox.mot.com with SMTP (5.67b/IDA-1.4.4/MOT-3.1) id AA21598; Tue, 14 Feb 1995 21:23:29 -0600 Received: from bb29c.mdd.comm.mot.com by mdd.comm.mot.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA17963; Tue, 14 Feb 95 19:23:23 PST Received: by bb29c.mdd.comm.mot.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA28013; Tue, 14 Feb 95 19:23:20 PST Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 19:23:19 -0800 (PST) From: Bill Mitchell X-Sender: mitchell@bb29c To: Ian Jackson , debian-bugs@pixar.com Subject: Re: Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 14 Feb 1995, Ian Jackson wrote: > Bill Mitchell writes ("Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term"): > > [... new dpkg's capability to force installation despite not being > > able to satisfy DEPENDS field requirements ...] > > I had a bad feeling when I put in that option that people might use it > for this kind of thing. > > The ONLY REASON people should have to use the --force- options > in dpkg is to work around some kind of brokenness - either in dpkg > itself or in a package. I'm not sure that's the ONLY reason. One other reason might be, for example, for a user to install the term.deb package when he has a comm package not "blessed" by the term maintainer by being included among the alternatives listed on the DEPENDS control-file line. This might be a comm package installed by dpkg from a package.deb file, but which hasn't (yet?) been picked up in term.deb as a "blessed" alternative dependency. It might also be a comm package installed from sources other than a pkg.deb file, and not through the services of dpkg. One other way around this would be for the user to install one of the "blessed" comm packages to satisfy dpkg and convince it to allow the installation of term.deb, then to remove the unwanted comm package which had been installed for the sole purpose of tricking dpkg. (That is, possibly, until dpkg gets smart enough to refuse to remove packages which still have dependent packages installed.) Ian goes on to opine that the DEPENDS entries for term should be recast as RECOMMENDED. There's a debate on that point currently in progress, with the term package maintainer so far steadfastly maintaining that he'll not back off the DEPENDS category without assurance that some satisfactorily-functional phone interface and comm package wil be available. When push comes to shove, the bottom line is that DEPENDS will have whatever the package maintainer decides to put there, and that might not be a good fit with the needs of 100.00% of all installers. In those cases where the fit is bad, and if the user is sufficiently clued-in to what its real import is, the dpkg --force option provides one way around this sort of a bad fit. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message sent: From: iwj@cam-orl.co.uk (Ian Jackson) To: Bill Mitchell Subject: Bug#421: Info received (was Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term) In-Reply-To: References: Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding this problem report. It has been forwarded to the developers to accompany the original report. If you wish to continue submit further information on your problem, please do the same thing again: send it to debian-bugs@pixar.com, ensuring that the Subject line starts with "Bug#421" or "Re: Bug#421" so that we can identify it as relating to the same problem. Please do not to reply to the address at the top of this message, unless you wish to report a problem with the bug-tracking system. Ian Jackson (maintainer, debian-bugs) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message sent to debian-devel@pixar.com: Subject: Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term Reply-To: Bill Mitchell , debian-bugs@pixar.com Resent-To: debian-devel@pixar.com Resent-From: Bill Mitchell Resent-Sender: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk Resent-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 04:03:04 GMT Resent-Message-ID: X-Debian-PR-Package: X-Debian-PR-Keywords: Received: via spool for debian-bugs; Wed, 15 Feb 1995 04:03:04 GMT Received: with rfc822 via encapsulated-mail id 02150352338073; Wed, 15 Feb 1995 03:52:34 GMT Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0realu-0005rBC; Tue, 14 Feb 95 19:51 PST Received: from motgate.mot.com by pixar.com with SMTP id AA15842 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 14 Feb 1995 19:25:08 -0800 Received: from pobox.mot.com by motgate.mot.com with SMTP (5.67b/IDA-1.4.4/MOT-3.1 for ) id AA28694; Tue, 14 Feb 1995 21:23:31 -0600 Received: from mdd.comm.mot.com (mdisea.mdd.comm.mot.com) by pobox.mot.com with SMTP (5.67b/IDA-1.4.4/MOT-3.1) id AA21598; Tue, 14 Feb 1995 21:23:29 -0600 Received: from bb29c.mdd.comm.mot.com by mdd.comm.mot.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA17963; Tue, 14 Feb 95 19:23:23 PST Received: by bb29c.mdd.comm.mot.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA28013; Tue, 14 Feb 95 19:23:20 PST Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 19:23:19 -0800 (PST) From: Bill Mitchell X-Sender: mitchell@bb29c To: Ian Jackson , debian-bugs@pixar.com In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 14 Feb 1995, Ian Jackson wrote: > Bill Mitchell writes ("Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term"): > > [... new dpkg's capability to force installation despite not being > > able to satisfy DEPENDS field requirements ...] > > I had a bad feeling when I put in that option that people might use it > for this kind of thing. > > The ONLY REASON people should have to use the --force- options > in dpkg is to work around some kind of brokenness - either in dpkg > itself or in a package. I'm not sure that's the ONLY reason. One other reason might be, for example, for a user to install the term.deb package when he has a comm package not "blessed" by the term maintainer by being included among the alternatives listed on the DEPENDS control-file line. This might be a comm package installed by dpkg from a package.deb file, but which hasn't (yet?) been picked up in term.deb as a "blessed" alternative dependency. It might also be a comm package installed from sources other than a pkg.deb file, and not through the services of dpkg. One other way around this would be for the user to install one of the "blessed" comm packages to satisfy dpkg and convince it to allow the installation of term.deb, then to remove the unwanted comm package which had been installed for the sole purpose of tricking dpkg. (That is, possibly, until dpkg gets smart enough to refuse to remove packages which still have dependent packages installed.) Ian goes on to opine that the DEPENDS entries for term should be recast as RECOMMENDED. There's a debate on that point currently in progress, with the term package maintainer so far steadfastly maintaining that he'll not back off the DEPENDS category without assurance that some satisfactorily-functional phone interface and comm package wil be available. When push comes to shove, the bottom line is that DEPENDS will have whatever the package maintainer decides to put there, and that might not be a good fit with the needs of 100.00% of all installers. In those cases where the fit is bad, and if the user is sufficiently clued-in to what its real import is, the dpkg --force option provides one way around this sort of a bad fit. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message received at debian-bugs: From cus.cam.ac.uk!iwj10 Tue Feb 14 18:16:09 1995 Return-Path: Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0reZHl-0005jrA; Tue, 14 Feb 95 18:16 PST Received: from bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk by pixar.com with SMTP id AA12945 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 14 Feb 1995 18:16:45 -0800 Received: by bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk (Smail-3.1.29.0 #26) id m0reZHf-000BzzA; Wed, 15 Feb 95 02:16 GMT Received: by chiark (Smail3.1.28.1 #3) id m0reZGD-0002g8A; Wed, 15 Feb 95 02:14 GMT Message-Id: Date: Wed, 15 Feb 95 02:14 GMT From: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson) To: debian-bugs@pixar.com Subject: Re: Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term Precedence: air-mail "James A. Robinson" writes ("Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term"): > [...] > I didn't like the idea of changing it to RECOMMENDED, because I am > sure some people who *don't* know what they are doing will sluff it > off, and then complain that Debian Term [favorite expletive(s)] > because they can't set it up on their remote end. This is a pretty > dim view of the end user, but I happen to believe that the lowest > common denominator is what we need to accommodate. When dselect is available this will only be true if the user deliberately ignored strong hints from dselect about what to do. I could even have dpkg issue a warning. Ian. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message sent: From: iwj@cam-orl.co.uk (Ian Jackson) To: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson) Subject: Bug#421: Info received (was Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term) In-Reply-To: References: Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding this problem report. It has been forwarded to the developers to accompany the original report. If you wish to continue submit further information on your problem, please do the same thing again: send it to debian-bugs@pixar.com, ensuring that the Subject line starts with "Bug#421" or "Re: Bug#421" so that we can identify it as relating to the same problem. Please do not to reply to the address at the top of this message, unless you wish to report a problem with the bug-tracking system. Ian Jackson (maintainer, debian-bugs) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message sent to debian-devel@pixar.com: Subject: Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term Reply-To: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson), debian-bugs@pixar.com Resent-To: debian-devel@pixar.com Resent-From: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson) Resent-Sender: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk Resent-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 02:18:01 GMT Resent-Message-ID: X-Debian-PR-Package: X-Debian-PR-Keywords: Received: via spool for debian-bugs; Wed, 15 Feb 1995 02:18:01 GMT Received: with rfc822 via encapsulated-mail id 02150217175177; Wed, 15 Feb 1995 02:17:17 GMT Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0reZHl-0005jrA; Tue, 14 Feb 95 18:16 PST Received: from bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk by pixar.com with SMTP id AA12945 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 14 Feb 1995 18:16:45 -0800 Received: by bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk (Smail-3.1.29.0 #26) id m0reZHf-000BzzA; Wed, 15 Feb 95 02:16 GMT Received: by chiark (Smail3.1.28.1 #3) id m0reZGD-0002g8A; Wed, 15 Feb 95 02:14 GMT Message-Id: Date: Wed, 15 Feb 95 02:14 GMT From: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson) To: debian-bugs@pixar.com Precedence: air-mail "James A. Robinson" writes ("Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term"): > [...] > I didn't like the idea of changing it to RECOMMENDED, because I am > sure some people who *don't* know what they are doing will sluff it > off, and then complain that Debian Term [favorite expletive(s)] > because they can't set it up on their remote end. This is a pretty > dim view of the end user, but I happen to believe that the lowest > common denominator is what we need to accommodate. When dselect is available this will only be true if the user deliberately ignored strong hints from dselect about what to do. I could even have dpkg issue a warning. Ian. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message received at debian-bugs: From cus.cam.ac.uk!iwj10 Tue Feb 14 15:58:17 1995 Return-Path: Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0reX8L-0005fUC; Tue, 14 Feb 95 15:58 PST Received: from bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk by pixar.com with SMTP id AA07152 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 14 Feb 1995 15:58:50 -0800 Received: by bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk (Smail-3.1.29.0 #26) id m0reWZu-000C0KC; Tue, 14 Feb 95 23:22 GMT Received: by chiark (Smail3.1.28.1 #3) id m0reUra-0002g8Z; Tue, 14 Feb 95 21:32 GMT Message-Id: Date: Tue, 14 Feb 95 21:32 GMT From: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson) To: debian-bugs@pixar.com Subject: Re: Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term Bill Mitchell writes ("Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term"): > [...] > Sounds like a judgement call to me. After checking the Guidelines, I > think I'd lean towards using the RECOMMEND field instead of DEPENDS > if it were my judgement call. However, I might lean back in light > of the new dpkg's capability (going from memory here, since I don't > have it available just now) to force installation despite not being > able to satisfy DEPENDS field requirements. That's an expert-user > sort of option, but we're also talking an expert-user sort of > situation in wanting to install the term package without a comm > programm which has been blessed by the term package maintainer. I had a bad feeling when I put in that option that people might use it for this kind of thing. The ONLY REASON people should have to use the --force- options in dpkg is to work around some kind of brokenness - either in dpkg itself or in a package. Therefore, by definition, requiring the user to say --force-depends when doing something perfectly reasonable is broken. Just because these options and facilities exist doesn't mean we should arrange to make use of them. Furthermore, the future effects of using --force-depends are rather unpredictable. In some cases it will be necessary to say --force-depends on removals of other not-very-related packages, for example. >From the Guidelines quote (which I wrote, btw): + The DEPENDS field lists packages that are required for this package to + provide a significant amount of functionality. The package + maintenance software will not allow a package to be installed without + also installing packages listed in its DEPENDS field, and will run the + postinst scripts of packages listed in DEPENDS fields before those of + the packages which depend on them, and run the prerm scripts before. It is clear that term can provide a significant amount of functionality without any of the packages that are currently listed in its DEPENDS field. Package maintainers should read `will not allow' literally, and not rely on features like --force-*. + The RECOMMENDED field lists packages that would be found together with + this one in all but unusual installations. The package maintenance + software will warn the user if they install a package without those + listed in its RECOMMENDED field. This is the appropriate level of dependency. It is the one that (for example) the X server and X client software should mutually use. Ian. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message sent: From: iwj@cam-orl.co.uk (Ian Jackson) To: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson) Subject: Bug#421: Info received (was Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term) In-Reply-To: References: Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding this problem report. It has been forwarded to the developers to accompany the original report. If you wish to continue submit further information on your problem, please do the same thing again: send it to debian-bugs@pixar.com, ensuring that the Subject line starts with "Bug#421" or "Re: Bug#421" so that we can identify it as relating to the same problem. Please do not to reply to the address at the top of this message, unless you wish to report a problem with the bug-tracking system. Ian Jackson (maintainer, debian-bugs) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message sent to debian-devel@pixar.com: Subject: Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term Reply-To: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson), debian-bugs@pixar.com Resent-To: debian-devel@pixar.com Resent-From: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson) Resent-Sender: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk Resent-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 00:03:01 GMT Resent-Message-ID: X-Debian-PR-Package: X-Debian-PR-Keywords: Received: via spool for debian-bugs; Wed, 15 Feb 1995 00:03:01 GMT Received: with rfc822 via encapsulated-mail id 021423592527013; Tue, 14 Feb 1995 23:59:26 GMT Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0reX8L-0005fUC; Tue, 14 Feb 95 15:58 PST Received: from bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk by pixar.com with SMTP id AA07152 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 14 Feb 1995 15:58:50 -0800 Received: by bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk (Smail-3.1.29.0 #26) id m0reWZu-000C0KC; Tue, 14 Feb 95 23:22 GMT Received: by chiark (Smail3.1.28.1 #3) id m0reUra-0002g8Z; Tue, 14 Feb 95 21:32 GMT Message-Id: Date: Tue, 14 Feb 95 21:32 GMT From: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson) To: debian-bugs@pixar.com Bill Mitchell writes ("Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term"): > [...] > Sounds like a judgement call to me. After checking the Guidelines, I > think I'd lean towards using the RECOMMEND field instead of DEPENDS > if it were my judgement call. However, I might lean back in light > of the new dpkg's capability (going from memory here, since I don't > have it available just now) to force installation despite not being > able to satisfy DEPENDS field requirements. That's an expert-user > sort of option, but we're also talking an expert-user sort of > situation in wanting to install the term package without a comm > programm which has been blessed by the term package maintainer. I had a bad feeling when I put in that option that people might use it for this kind of thing. The ONLY REASON people should have to use the --force- options in dpkg is to work around some kind of brokenness - either in dpkg itself or in a package. Therefore, by definition, requiring the user to say --force-depends when doing something perfectly reasonable is broken. Just because these options and facilities exist doesn't mean we should arrange to make use of them. Furthermore, the future effects of using --force-depends are rather unpredictable. In some cases it will be necessary to say --force-depends on removals of other not-very-related packages, for example. >From the Guidelines quote (which I wrote, btw): + The DEPENDS field lists packages that are required for this package to + provide a significant amount of functionality. The package + maintenance software will not allow a package to be installed without + also installing packages listed in its DEPENDS field, and will run the + postinst scripts of packages listed in DEPENDS fields before those of + the packages which depend on them, and run the prerm scripts before. It is clear that term can provide a significant amount of functionality without any of the packages that are currently listed in its DEPENDS field. Package maintainers should read `will not allow' literally, and not rely on features like --force-*. + The RECOMMENDED field lists packages that would be found together with + this one in all but unusual installations. The package maintenance + software will warn the user if they install a package without those + listed in its RECOMMENDED field. This is the appropriate level of dependency. It is the one that (for example) the X server and X client software should mutually use. Ian. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message received at debian-bugs: From simons-rock.edu!jimr Tue Feb 14 15:23:11 1995 Return-Path: Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0reWaM-0005kyC; Tue, 14 Feb 95 15:23 PST Received: from plato.simons-rock.edu by pixar.com with SMTP id AA06018 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 14 Feb 1995 15:23:43 -0800 Received: from simons-rock.edu by plato.simons-rock.edu with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #1) id m0reWZu-00001TC; Tue, 14 Feb 95 18:22 EST Message-Id: To: Raul Miller , debian-bugs@pixar.com Subject: Re: Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term In-Reply-To: Message from Raul Miller of "Tue, 14 Feb 1995 17:11:36 EST." <199502142211.RAA10789@home.merit.edu> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 18:22:42 -0500 From: "James A. Robinson" [Note: I don't want this to come off as a flame, because these are serious concerns I have.] > Sure, and it takes about five minutes to write a primitive (no > scripting language) terminal emulator for Linux. So, it should be > trivial to come up with one tailored to the requirements of term, > which could be supplied with term. Would that be adequate? But your program is going to have to handle allowing the user to login to their host system (7bit or 8bit line), allow them enough of an interface to upload a copy of term source, or term setup files, and work on them. Your also going to have to make sure it can easily deal with multiple phone numbers (for people with accounts on different machines), modem problems (BUSY signals, etc.), and probably some things I am forgetting. This is all going to have to be bundled into a package that is easy to setup and use. This seems like a job for a comm program that is standard (documented, and well supported) and debian-packaged for easy installation and setup. I didn't like the idea of changing it to RECOMMENDED, because I am sure some people who *don't* know what they are doing will sluff it off, and then complain that Debian Term [favorite expletive(s)] because they can't set it up on their remote end. This is a pretty dim view of the end user, but I happen to believe that the lowest common denominator is what we need to accommodate. If you are willing to make a comm program that is tailored to term, and does what I list above, I will be more then willing to bundle it with term. (In fact, it would be something to send to the current term author/maintainer, call it tdial or soemthing...) Jim ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message sent: From: iwj@cam-orl.co.uk (Ian Jackson) To: "James A. Robinson" Subject: Bug#421: Info received (was Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term) In-Reply-To: References: Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding this problem report. It has been forwarded to the developers to accompany the original report. If you wish to continue submit further information on your problem, please do the same thing again: send it to debian-bugs@pixar.com, ensuring that the Subject line starts with "Bug#421" or "Re: Bug#421" so that we can identify it as relating to the same problem. Please do not to reply to the address at the top of this message, unless you wish to report a problem with the bug-tracking system. Ian Jackson (maintainer, debian-bugs) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message sent to debian-devel@pixar.com: Subject: Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term Reply-To: "James A. Robinson" , debian-bugs@pixar.com Resent-To: debian-devel@pixar.com Resent-From: "James A. Robinson" Resent-Sender: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 23:33:01 GMT Resent-Message-ID: X-Debian-PR-Package: X-Debian-PR-Keywords: Received: via spool for debian-bugs; Tue, 14 Feb 1995 23:33:01 GMT Received: with rfc822 via encapsulated-mail id 021423242025489; Tue, 14 Feb 1995 23:24:20 GMT Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0reWaM-0005kyC; Tue, 14 Feb 95 15:23 PST Received: from plato.simons-rock.edu by pixar.com with SMTP id AA06018 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 14 Feb 1995 15:23:43 -0800 Received: from simons-rock.edu by plato.simons-rock.edu with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #1) id m0reWZu-00001TC; Tue, 14 Feb 95 18:22 EST Message-Id: To: Raul Miller , debian-bugs@pixar.com In-Reply-To: Message from Raul Miller of "Tue, 14 Feb 1995 17:11:36 EST." <199502142211.RAA10789@home.merit.edu> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 18:22:42 -0500 From: "James A. Robinson" [Note: I don't want this to come off as a flame, because these are serious concerns I have.] > Sure, and it takes about five minutes to write a primitive (no > scripting language) terminal emulator for Linux. So, it should be > trivial to come up with one tailored to the requirements of term, > which could be supplied with term. Would that be adequate? But your program is going to have to handle allowing the user to login to their host system (7bit or 8bit line), allow them enough of an interface to upload a copy of term source, or term setup files, and work on them. Your also going to have to make sure it can easily deal with multiple phone numbers (for people with accounts on different machines), modem problems (BUSY signals, etc.), and probably some things I am forgetting. This is all going to have to be bundled into a package that is easy to setup and use. This seems like a job for a comm program that is standard (documented, and well supported) and debian-packaged for easy installation and setup. I didn't like the idea of changing it to RECOMMENDED, because I am sure some people who *don't* know what they are doing will sluff it off, and then complain that Debian Term [favorite expletive(s)] because they can't set it up on their remote end. This is a pretty dim view of the end user, but I happen to believe that the lowest common denominator is what we need to accommodate. If you are willing to make a comm program that is tailored to term, and does what I list above, I will be more then willing to bundle it with term. (In fact, it would be something to send to the current term author/maintainer, call it tdial or soemthing...) Jim ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message received at debian-bugs: From legislate.com!rdr Tue Feb 14 14:11:35 1995 Return-Path: Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0reVT4-00062fC; Tue, 14 Feb 95 14:11 PST Received: from home.merit.edu by pixar.com with SMTP id AA02881 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 14 Feb 1995 14:12:11 -0800 Received: (from rdr@localhost) by home.merit.edu (8.6.9/merit-2.0) id RAA10789; Tue, 14 Feb 1995 17:11:36 -0500 Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 17:11:36 -0500 From: Raul Miller Message-Id: <199502142211.RAA10789@home.merit.edu> To: debian-bugs@Pixar.com In-Reply-To: (message from Bill Mitchell on Mon, 13 Feb 1995 19:54:40 -0800 (PST)) Subject: Re: Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term James A. Robinson: > I'm sorry but there is no way I want to put term out for > inexperienced users without also requiring a standard comm > program. Term is hard enough to setup for new users, and not > letting them (or forcing those who don't know anthing about term) > have access decent comm program is, IMO, unreasonable. [...] Bill Mitchell: Sounds like a judgement call to me. After checking the Guidelines, I think I'd lean towards using the RECOMMEND field instead of DEPENDS if it were my judgement call. However, I might lean back in light of the new dpkg's capability (going from memory here, since I don't have it available just now) to force installation despite not being able to satisfy DEPENDS field requirements. Well... perhaps it's time we introduce into debian some sort of concept of a meta-package, or a package service? In many cases where there's a list of REQUIRES, it's because there's some sort of generic service being provided. In the case of term, it's a communications package. The problem here is that kermit | seyon | minicom is a rather specialized and heavy duty list for a rather trivial requirement. Jim Robinson: I use fet to dial my phone for term, but a lot of people will need to set term up on their host system. I think it is much better to make sure they have to comm tools necessary to do so. Sure, and it takes about five minutes to write a primitive (no scripting language) terminal emulator for Linux. So, it should be trivial to come up with one tailored to the requirements of term, which could be supplied with term. Would that be adequate? Raul D. Miller ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message sent: From: iwj@cam-orl.co.uk (Ian Jackson) To: Raul Miller Subject: Bug#421: Info received (was Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term) In-Reply-To: <199502142211.RAA10789@home.merit.edu> References: <199502142211.RAA10789@home.merit.edu> Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding this problem report. It has been forwarded to the developers to accompany the original report. If you wish to continue submit further information on your problem, please do the same thing again: send it to debian-bugs@pixar.com, ensuring that the Subject line starts with "Bug#421" or "Re: Bug#421" so that we can identify it as relating to the same problem. Please do not to reply to the address at the top of this message, unless you wish to report a problem with the bug-tracking system. Ian Jackson (maintainer, debian-bugs) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message sent to debian-devel@pixar.com: Subject: Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term Reply-To: Raul Miller , debian-bugs@pixar.com Resent-To: debian-devel@pixar.com Resent-From: Raul Miller Resent-Sender: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 22:18:01 GMT Resent-Message-ID: X-Debian-PR-Package: X-Debian-PR-Keywords: Received: via spool for debian-bugs; Tue, 14 Feb 1995 22:18:01 GMT Received: with rfc822 via encapsulated-mail id 021422124322269; Tue, 14 Feb 1995 22:12:44 GMT Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0reVT4-00062fC; Tue, 14 Feb 95 14:11 PST Received: from home.merit.edu by pixar.com with SMTP id AA02881 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 14 Feb 1995 14:12:11 -0800 Received: (from rdr@localhost) by home.merit.edu (8.6.9/merit-2.0) id RAA10789; Tue, 14 Feb 1995 17:11:36 -0500 Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 17:11:36 -0500 From: Raul Miller Message-Id: <199502142211.RAA10789@home.merit.edu> To: debian-bugs@Pixar.com In-Reply-To: (message from Bill Mitchell on Mon, 13 Feb 1995 19:54:40 -0800 (PST)) James A. Robinson: > I'm sorry but there is no way I want to put term out for > inexperienced users without also requiring a standard comm > program. Term is hard enough to setup for new users, and not > letting them (or forcing those who don't know anthing about term) > have access decent comm program is, IMO, unreasonable. [...] Bill Mitchell: Sounds like a judgement call to me. After checking the Guidelines, I think I'd lean towards using the RECOMMEND field instead of DEPENDS if it were my judgement call. However, I might lean back in light of the new dpkg's capability (going from memory here, since I don't have it available just now) to force installation despite not being able to satisfy DEPENDS field requirements. Well... perhaps it's time we introduce into debian some sort of concept of a meta-package, or a package service? In many cases where there's a list of REQUIRES, it's because there's some sort of generic service being provided. In the case of term, it's a communications package. The problem here is that kermit | seyon | minicom is a rather specialized and heavy duty list for a rather trivial requirement. Jim Robinson: I use fet to dial my phone for term, but a lot of people will need to set term up on their host system. I think it is much better to make sure they have to comm tools necessary to do so. Sure, and it takes about five minutes to write a primitive (no scripting language) terminal emulator for Linux. So, it should be trivial to come up with one tailored to the requirements of term, which could be supplied with term. Would that be adequate? Raul D. Miller ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message received at debian-bugs: From mdd.comm.mot.com!mitchell Mon Feb 13 19:55:00 1995 Return-Path: Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0reELo-0005oSC; Mon, 13 Feb 95 19:54 PST Received: from motgate.mot.com by pixar.com with SMTP id AA18624 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Mon, 13 Feb 1995 19:55:20 -0800 Received: from pobox.mot.com by motgate.mot.com with SMTP (5.67b/IDA-1.4.4/MOT-3.1 for ) id AA10071; Mon, 13 Feb 1995 21:54:44 -0600 Received: from mdd.comm.mot.com (mdisea.mdd.comm.mot.com) by pobox.mot.com with SMTP (5.67b/IDA-1.4.4/MOT-3.1 for ) id AA27150; Mon, 13 Feb 1995 21:54:43 -0600 Received: from bb29c.mdd.comm.mot.com by mdd.comm.mot.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA29681; Mon, 13 Feb 95 19:54:42 PST Received: by bb29c.mdd.comm.mot.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA22716; Mon, 13 Feb 95 19:54:41 PST Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 19:54:40 -0800 (PST) From: Bill Mitchell X-Sender: mitchell@bb29c To: debian-bugs@pixar.com Subject: Re: Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 13 Feb 1995, James A. Robinson wrote: > > [...] this is a completely unreasonable restriction. For example, > > here's a simple shell script to allow communication with an arbitrary > > serial port: > > I'm sorry but there is no way I want to put term out for inexperienced > users without also requiring a standard comm program. Term is hard > enough to setup for new users, and not letting them (or forcing those > who don't know anthing about term) have access decent comm program is, > IMO, unreasonable. [...] I kind of agree with this, having found term to be less than newuser friendly myself. However, looking over the debian packaging Guidelines document, I see: + The DEPENDS field lists packages that are required for this package to + provide a significant amount of functionality. The package + maintenance software will not allow a package to be installed without + also installing packages listed in its DEPENDS field, and will run the + postinst scripts of packages listed in DEPENDS fields before those of + the packages which depend on them, and run the prerm scripts before. + + The RECOMMENDED field lists packages that would be found together with + this one in all but unusual installations. The package maintenance + software will warn the user if they install a package without those + listed in its RECOMMENDED field. Sounds like a judgement call to me. After checking the Guidelines, I think I'd lean towards using the RECOMMEND field instead of DEPENDS if it were my judgement call. However, I might lean back in light of the new dpkg's capability (going from memory here, since I don't have it available just now) to force installation despite not being able to satisfy DEPENDS field requirements. That's an expert-user sort of option, but we're also talking an expert-user sort of situation in wanting to install the term package without a comm programm which has been blessed by the term package maintainer. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message sent: From: iwj@cam-orl.co.uk (Ian Jackson) To: Bill Mitchell Subject: Bug#421: Info received (was Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term) In-Reply-To: References: Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding this problem report. It has been forwarded to the developers to accompany the original report. If you wish to continue submit further information on your problem, please do the same thing again: send it to debian-bugs@pixar.com, ensuring that the Subject line starts with "Bug#421" or "Re: Bug#421" so that we can identify it as relating to the same problem. Please do not to reply to the address at the top of this message, unless you wish to report a problem with the bug-tracking system. Ian Jackson (maintainer, debian-bugs) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message sent to debian-devel@pixar.com: Subject: Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term Reply-To: Bill Mitchell , debian-bugs@pixar.com Resent-To: debian-devel@pixar.com Resent-From: Bill Mitchell Resent-Sender: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 04:03:03 GMT Resent-Message-ID: X-Debian-PR-Package: X-Debian-PR-Keywords: Received: via spool for debian-bugs; Tue, 14 Feb 1995 04:03:03 GMT Received: with rfc822 via encapsulated-mail id 021403561425405; Tue, 14 Feb 1995 03:56:14 GMT Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0reELo-0005oSC; Mon, 13 Feb 95 19:54 PST Received: from motgate.mot.com by pixar.com with SMTP id AA18624 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Mon, 13 Feb 1995 19:55:20 -0800 Received: from pobox.mot.com by motgate.mot.com with SMTP (5.67b/IDA-1.4.4/MOT-3.1 for ) id AA10071; Mon, 13 Feb 1995 21:54:44 -0600 Received: from mdd.comm.mot.com (mdisea.mdd.comm.mot.com) by pobox.mot.com with SMTP (5.67b/IDA-1.4.4/MOT-3.1 for ) id AA27150; Mon, 13 Feb 1995 21:54:43 -0600 Received: from bb29c.mdd.comm.mot.com by mdd.comm.mot.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA29681; Mon, 13 Feb 95 19:54:42 PST Received: by bb29c.mdd.comm.mot.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA22716; Mon, 13 Feb 95 19:54:41 PST Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 19:54:40 -0800 (PST) From: Bill Mitchell X-Sender: mitchell@bb29c To: debian-bugs@pixar.com In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 13 Feb 1995, James A. Robinson wrote: > > [...] this is a completely unreasonable restriction. For example, > > here's a simple shell script to allow communication with an arbitrary > > serial port: > > I'm sorry but there is no way I want to put term out for inexperienced > users without also requiring a standard comm program. Term is hard > enough to setup for new users, and not letting them (or forcing those > who don't know anthing about term) have access decent comm program is, > IMO, unreasonable. [...] I kind of agree with this, having found term to be less than newuser friendly myself. However, looking over the debian packaging Guidelines document, I see: + The DEPENDS field lists packages that are required for this package to + provide a significant amount of functionality. The package + maintenance software will not allow a package to be installed without + also installing packages listed in its DEPENDS field, and will run the + postinst scripts of packages listed in DEPENDS fields before those of + the packages which depend on them, and run the prerm scripts before. + + The RECOMMENDED field lists packages that would be found together with + this one in all but unusual installations. The package maintenance + software will warn the user if they install a package without those + listed in its RECOMMENDED field. Sounds like a judgement call to me. After checking the Guidelines, I think I'd lean towards using the RECOMMEND field instead of DEPENDS if it were my judgement call. However, I might lean back in light of the new dpkg's capability (going from memory here, since I don't have it available just now) to force installation despite not being able to satisfy DEPENDS field requirements. That's an expert-user sort of option, but we're also talking an expert-user sort of situation in wanting to install the term package without a comm programm which has been blessed by the term package maintainer. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message received at debian-bugs: From simons-rock.edu!jimr Mon Feb 13 19:12:56 1995 Return-Path: Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0reDh9-0005kyC; Mon, 13 Feb 95 19:12 PST Received: from plato.simons-rock.edu by pixar.com with SMTP id AA16078 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Mon, 13 Feb 1995 19:13:30 -0800 Received: from simons-rock.edu by plato.simons-rock.edu with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #1) id m0reDgi-00000pC; Mon, 13 Feb 95 22:12 EST Message-Id: To: Raul Miller , debian-bugs@pixar.com Subject: Re: Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term In-Reply-To: Message from Raul Miller of "Mon, 13 Feb 1995 18:47:53 EST." <199502132347.SAA27737@home.merit.edu> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 22:12:28 -0500 From: "James A. Robinson" > term won't install unless minicom, kermit, or seyon is installed. > Presumably, because you need something to dial the phone? [Maybe we > should have a cu package?] > > Anyways, this is a completely unreasonable restriction. For example, > here's a simple shell script to allow communication with an arbitrary > serial port: I'm sorry but there is no way I want to put term out for inexperienced users without also requiring a standard comm program. Term is hard enough to setup for new users, and not letting them (or forcing those who don't know anthing about term) have access decent comm program is, IMO, unreasonable. I use fet to dial my phone for term, but a lot of people will need to set term up on their host system. I think it is much better to make sure they have to comm tools necessary to do so. Jim ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message sent: From: iwj@cam-orl.co.uk (Ian Jackson) To: "James A. Robinson" Subject: Bug#421: Info received (was Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term) In-Reply-To: References: Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding this problem report. It has been forwarded to the developers to accompany the original report. If you wish to continue submit further information on your problem, please do the same thing again: send it to debian-bugs@pixar.com, ensuring that the Subject line starts with "Bug#421" or "Re: Bug#421" so that we can identify it as relating to the same problem. Please do not to reply to the address at the top of this message, unless you wish to report a problem with the bug-tracking system. Ian Jackson (maintainer, debian-bugs) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message sent to debian-devel@pixar.com: Subject: Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term Reply-To: "James A. Robinson" , debian-bugs@pixar.com Resent-To: debian-devel@pixar.com Resent-From: "James A. Robinson" Resent-Sender: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 03:18:03 GMT Resent-Message-ID: X-Debian-PR-Package: X-Debian-PR-Keywords: Received: via spool for debian-bugs; Tue, 14 Feb 1995 03:18:03 GMT Received: with rfc822 via encapsulated-mail id 021403140423892; Tue, 14 Feb 1995 03:14:04 GMT Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0reDh9-0005kyC; Mon, 13 Feb 95 19:12 PST Received: from plato.simons-rock.edu by pixar.com with SMTP id AA16078 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Mon, 13 Feb 1995 19:13:30 -0800 Received: from simons-rock.edu by plato.simons-rock.edu with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #1) id m0reDgi-00000pC; Mon, 13 Feb 95 22:12 EST Message-Id: To: Raul Miller , debian-bugs@pixar.com In-Reply-To: Message from Raul Miller of "Mon, 13 Feb 1995 18:47:53 EST." <199502132347.SAA27737@home.merit.edu> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 22:12:28 -0500 From: "James A. Robinson" > term won't install unless minicom, kermit, or seyon is installed. > Presumably, because you need something to dial the phone? [Maybe we > should have a cu package?] > > Anyways, this is a completely unreasonable restriction. For example, > here's a simple shell script to allow communication with an arbitrary > serial port: I'm sorry but there is no way I want to put term out for inexperienced users without also requiring a standard comm program. Term is hard enough to setup for new users, and not letting them (or forcing those who don't know anthing about term) have access decent comm program is, IMO, unreasonable. I use fet to dial my phone for term, but a lot of people will need to set term up on their host system. I think it is much better to make sure they have to comm tools necessary to do so. Jim ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message received at debian-bugs: From cus.cam.ac.uk!iwj10 Mon Feb 13 18:57:19 1995 Return-Path: Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0reDS3-0005hOA; Mon, 13 Feb 95 18:57 PST Received: from bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk by pixar.com with SMTP id AA15256 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Mon, 13 Feb 1995 18:57:49 -0800 Received: by bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk (Smail-3.1.29.0 #26) id m0reDQt-000BzaA; Tue, 14 Feb 95 02:56 GMT Received: by chiark (Smail3.1.28.1 #3) id m0reD8r-0002g8A; Tue, 14 Feb 95 02:37 GMT Message-Id: Date: Tue, 14 Feb 95 02:37 GMT From: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson) To: Raul Miller , debian-bugs@pixar.com Subject: Re: Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term Precedence: air-mail Raul Miller writes ("Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term"): > term won't install unless minicom, kermit, or seyon is installed. > Presumably, because you need something to dial the phone? [Maybe we > should have a cu package?] > > Anyways, this is a completely unreasonable restriction. For example, > here's a simple shell script to allow communication with an arbitrary > serial port: [ deleted - iwj ] Indeed, this seems an unreasonable restriction. term should probably use RECOMMENDED rather than DEPENDS here. Ian. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message sent: From: iwj@cam-orl.co.uk (Ian Jackson) To: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson) Subject: Bug#421: Info received (was Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term) In-Reply-To: References: Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding this problem report. It has been forwarded to the developers to accompany the original report. If you wish to continue submit further information on your problem, please do the same thing again: send it to debian-bugs@pixar.com, ensuring that the Subject line starts with "Bug#421" or "Re: Bug#421" so that we can identify it as relating to the same problem. Please do not to reply to the address at the top of this message, unless you wish to report a problem with the bug-tracking system. Ian Jackson (maintainer, debian-bugs) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message sent to debian-devel@pixar.com: Subject: Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term Reply-To: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson), debian-bugs@pixar.com Resent-To: debian-devel@pixar.com Resent-From: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson) Resent-Sender: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 03:03:11 GMT Resent-Message-ID: X-Debian-PR-Package: X-Debian-PR-Keywords: Received: via spool for debian-bugs; Tue, 14 Feb 1995 03:03:11 GMT Received: with rfc822 via encapsulated-mail id 021402593723340; Tue, 14 Feb 1995 02:59:37 GMT Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0reDS3-0005hOA; Mon, 13 Feb 95 18:57 PST Received: from bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk by pixar.com with SMTP id AA15256 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Mon, 13 Feb 1995 18:57:49 -0800 Received: by bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk (Smail-3.1.29.0 #26) id m0reDQt-000BzaA; Tue, 14 Feb 95 02:56 GMT Received: by chiark (Smail3.1.28.1 #3) id m0reD8r-0002g8A; Tue, 14 Feb 95 02:37 GMT Message-Id: Date: Tue, 14 Feb 95 02:37 GMT From: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson) To: Raul Miller , debian-bugs@pixar.com Precedence: air-mail Raul Miller writes ("Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term"): > term won't install unless minicom, kermit, or seyon is installed. > Presumably, because you need something to dial the phone? [Maybe we > should have a cu package?] > > Anyways, this is a completely unreasonable restriction. For example, > here's a simple shell script to allow communication with an arbitrary > serial port: [ deleted - iwj ] Indeed, this seems an unreasonable restriction. term should probably use RECOMMENDED rather than DEPENDS here. Ian. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message received at debian-bugs: From legislate.com!rdr Mon Feb 13 15:47:58 1995 Return-Path: Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0reAUn-0006APC; Mon, 13 Feb 95 15:47 PST Received: from home.merit.edu by pixar.com with SMTP id AA02253 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Mon, 13 Feb 1995 15:48:30 -0800 Received: (from rdr@localhost) by home.merit.edu (8.6.9/merit-2.0) id SAA27737; Mon, 13 Feb 1995 18:47:53 -0500 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 18:47:53 -0500 From: Raul Miller Message-Id: <199502132347.SAA27737@home.merit.edu> To: debian-bugs@pixar.com Subject: unreasonable restriction on term term won't install unless minicom, kermit, or seyon is installed. Presumably, because you need something to dial the phone? [Maybe we should have a cu package?] Anyways, this is a completely unreasonable restriction. For example, here's a simple shell script to allow communication with an arbitrary serial port: #!/bin/sh if tty -s then restore='stty '`stty -g` stty raw -echo fi cat <$1 & id=$! trap "kill -HUP $id; $restore; exit 1" 1 2 3 5 10 13 15 cat >$1 kill -HUP $id $restore exit 0 ...................................................................... For term, you might want to do something more like: #!/bin/sh ( dialscript while [ -f /some/file/name ] do sleep 60 done ) > $1 & id=$! sleep 30 term kill -HUP $! ...................................................................... but the principle is the same: you can talk out the serial port without any fancy communications packages. [By the way, if term daemonizes itself, remove that kill line.] Btw, here might be what dialscript looks like #!/bin/sh sleep 2 echo +++ sleep 2 echo ath sleep 1 echo adtd5551212 sleep 30 echo me sleep 1 echo secret sleep 1 echo vt100 ...................................................................... Um... cu would be better because you wouldn't have to wait so unreasonably... A good perl hacker could probably come up with something better, too... Raul D. Miller ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message sent: From: iwj@cam-orl.co.uk (Ian Jackson) To: Raul Miller Subject: Bug#421: Acknowledgement (was: unreasonable restriction on term) In-Reply-To: <199502132347.SAA27737@home.merit.edu> References: <199502132347.SAA27737@home.merit.edu> Thank you for the problem report you have sent regarding Debian GNU/Linux. This is an automatically generated reply, to let you know your message has been received. It is being forwarded to the developers' mailing list for their attention; they will reply in due course. If you wish to submit further information on your problem, please send it to debian-bugs@pixar.com, but please ensure that the Subject line of your message starts with "Bug#421" or "Re: Bug#421" so that we can identify it as relating to the same problem. Please do not to reply to the address at the top of this message, unless you wish to report a problem with the bug-tracking system. Your message didn't have a Package: line at the start (in the pseudo-header following the real mail header), or didn't have a psuedo-header at all. This makes it much harder for us to categorise and deal with your problem report; please ensure that you say which package(s) and version(s) the problem is with next time. Some time in the future the problem reports system may start rejecting such messages. Ian Jackson (maintainer, debian-bugs) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Message sent to debian-devel@pixar.com: Subject: Bug#421: unreasonable restriction on term Reply-To: Raul Miller , debian-bugs@pixar.com Resent-To: debian-devel@pixar.com Resent-From: Raul Miller Resent-Sender: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 00:03:02 GMT Resent-Message-ID: X-Debian-PR-Package: X-Debian-PR-Keywords: Received: via spool for debian-bugs; Tue, 14 Feb 1995 00:03:02 GMT Received: with rfc822 via encapsulated-mail id 021323491412906; Mon, 13 Feb 1995 23:49:14 GMT Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0reAUn-0006APC; Mon, 13 Feb 95 15:47 PST Received: from home.merit.edu by pixar.com with SMTP id AA02253 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Mon, 13 Feb 1995 15:48:30 -0800 Received: (from rdr@localhost) by home.merit.edu (8.6.9/merit-2.0) id SAA27737; Mon, 13 Feb 1995 18:47:53 -0500 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 18:47:53 -0500 From: Raul Miller Message-Id: <199502132347.SAA27737@home.merit.edu> To: debian-bugs@pixar.com term won't install unless minicom, kermit, or seyon is installed. Presumably, because you need something to dial the phone? [Maybe we should have a cu package?] Anyways, this is a completely unreasonable restriction. For example, here's a simple shell script to allow communication with an arbitrary serial port: #!/bin/sh if tty -s then restore='stty '`stty -g` stty raw -echo fi cat <$1 & id=$! trap "kill -HUP $id; $restore; exit 1" 1 2 3 5 10 13 15 cat >$1 kill -HUP $id $restore exit 0 ...................................................................... For term, you might want to do something more like: #!/bin/sh ( dialscript while [ -f /some/file/name ] do sleep 60 done ) > $1 & id=$! sleep 30 term kill -HUP $! ...................................................................... but the principle is the same: you can talk out the serial port without any fancy communications packages. [By the way, if term daemonizes itself, remove that kill line.] Btw, here might be what dialscript looks like #!/bin/sh sleep 2 echo +++ sleep 2 echo ath sleep 1 echo adtd5551212 sleep 30 echo me sleep 1 echo secret sleep 1 echo vt100 ...................................................................... Um... cu would be better because you wouldn't have to wait so unreasonably... A good perl hacker could probably come up with something better, too... Raul D. Miller ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Ian Jackson / iwj10@thor.cam.ac.uk , with the debian-bugs tracking mechanism This page last modified 07:43:01 GMT Wed 01 Nov