Re: APT [was Re: Is this really the right thing to do?]
Hello,
> > > Before proceding with my proposal, let me define a term for packages
> > > that are installed for no other reason than to satisfy a dependency.
> > > I think 'Hooked' is a good word. It is a synonym for 'dependent', and
> > > it can lead to many good fishing analogies. ;)
> >
> > A better word might be 'Wanted' (inverse of Hooked).
>
> Good word. But do you think that might be confusing because of the
> fact that these packages are not 'wanted' by the user unless they
> are required as a dependency?
Oops, I wasn't clear - as somebody else already guessed, I meant Wanted for
the packages the admin *does* want.
Ie your Hooked would be the equivalent of my "Wanted: no".
> > It might even be better to have it a string field, so the admin can note *why*
> > it was wanted - like this:
> >
> > Wanted: for J. Random Luser's xyzzy project
> > or
> > Wanted: by /usr/local/bin/plugh
...
> Maybe I wasn't clear.
I think it was me who wasn't clear :-)
> A 'Hooked' package is one that is only installed because it is a dependency
> to another package that is installed. Therefore, it can be safely
> (and automatically) removed when all packages that depend on it are
> removed. Library packages are a good example.
I meant this for non-hooked packages. It'd just be to help the admin remember
why the package was installed (and eg to remind him to remove it because the
xyzzy project was abandoned months ago).
> It would be worthwhile even without any suite-packages.
I guess, but suite packages are, I think, long overdue, and would make the
flag that much more useful.
Hope that makes things clearer...
Jiri <jiri@baum.com.au>
Reply to: