Re: Ignoring dependance on "important" packages?
"Martin Bialasinski" <martin@internet-treff.uni-koeln.de> writes:
> See? This extra semantic will do some good I believe. And if Debian
> continues to grow that fast, such a thing is badly needed.
No, I don't see and vehemently disagree.
The whole idea of tasks as packages was that they are normal packages
and handled as is by the existing infrastructure. Few users need or
care about a one-shot task; I'm sure they'd be just as happy leaving
them in. If they want to remove a package, they'll also have to
remove the tasks which depend on it.
As for "auto-removal", it's contorted and wierd.
As for wanting remove packages which a task brought in when the task
is removed, that is a general limitation in dpkg. We cannot and
should not try to solve it with tasks. Let Debian solve it in the new
dpkg or a new apt.
The *second* you start messing around with apt or dpkg for
metapackages, most of the benefits of metapackages go away.
Furthermore, all the "improvements" which you seem to classify as
requirements, I would classify as unnecessary niceties.
--
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
Reply to: