Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]
[CC'ing the aptitude maintainer, mainly for the last paragraph.]
* Jeroen van Wolffelaar [Tue, 11 Oct 2005 22:00:22 +0200]:
> The main things that this thread shows me, is that it is *not* immediately
> clear to people not too familiar with Debian that the removal of the 'gnome'
> package will not have *any* effect on what actual software is actually installed
> on your system.
Do not forget, though, that with aptitude becoming the prefered tool
for package management (over plain apt-get), this is no longer true.
"aptitude install gnome" will mark all of its dependencies as "auto",
i.e. just installed because of a dependency. Which means that
"aptitude remove gnome" will want to remove all the dependencies _for
real_, unless they have been previously marked as "noauto" by hand.
If grasping the concept "removing a metapackage won't remove the
dependencies" was already difficult, grasping the whole auto/noauto
story can be... ykwim. Which, IMV, means that the user should not have
to care (much) about that.
* * *
As mentioned in , we've been considering switching to Recommends
for KDE metapackges, and mention in the description about the use of
What perhaps would be really best, though, would be some kind of
special handling for metapackages from aptitude et al. For example
(just the first I could think of), assume --with-recommends for
packages that have "Metapackage: yes". But this leaves the problem of
how to detect on upgrades if a recommended but not installed package
was uninstalled by the user, or newly introduced in the new version.
Daniel, do you have any comments on this? Is there a bug open about
handling of metapackages, or perhaps would be a good idea to open one?
EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw