Re: Ignoring dependance on "important" packages?
>> "Stephane" == Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@debian.org> wrote:
Stephane> On Saturday 17 July 1999, at 19 h 58, the keyboard of "Martin Bialasinski"
Stephane> <martin@internet-treff.uni-koeln.de> wrote:
>> task foo contains bar and baz. bar depends on baz. I will remove baz
>> from the profile. This will reduce the size (so make it easier to
>> manage the whole profiles thing). And apt will fetch the dependant
>> packages anyway.
Stephane> No: this will prevent proper calculation of the total size.
If it is just for calculation of the size, then this can be done
without the explicit dependancies.
The sizes can only be acurate for profiles anyway, not for multiple
selected tasks.
>> Secondly, I believe I can also remove the packages with priority
>> important from the profiles. They are suppose to be installed
>> anyway no?
Stephane> No. See Enrique's reply.
Ok. Hmm. The advantages of the individual packages requesting
dependant libs instead of directly depending on the indirectly needed
packages is overwhelming, as the task packages stay pretty
selfcontaining that way.
The libs are not problematic. The packages will put the dependancies
anyway.
It is about packages like at, cron, dc or bc which are in all tasks.
IMHO, it is wrong that the sgml task has a dependancy on cron. It is
not the thing it should cover.
What do you thing about a mandatory "basic" task package that has a
dependancy on all important packages?
All profile depend on this basic task, and if one chooses to select
among the available task packages, the basic task is mandatory.
The user can still override this in dselect.
And it would allow to bypass dselect by configure sources.list and run
apt-get update && apt-get install <selected profile / task(s)>
Comments on this solution?
Ciao,
Martin
Reply to: