[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies

[Bill Allombert]
>           The `Depends' field should be used if the depended-on package is
>           required for the depending package to provide a significant
>           amount of functionality.

I'd say if a -data package is useless without its corresponding binary
package, that fits this definition just fine.  Policy does not specify
*why* a package might fail to provide significant functionality without
the presence of something else.  (Unless you wish to argue that -data
packages provide no functionality, which seems a pretty arbitrary
definition of 'functionality'.)

However, that's rather beside the point.  I'd be happy to concede that
Depends should have a narrower definition, if a 'Useless-Alone' or
'Keep-Orphan' field/tag could be introduced to cover the -data case.

Hmmm, what's the story with fields versus tags for boolean properties?
"Essential" is a field, but people are now talking about tags for this
sort of thing instead.

> If you want to remove useless package, use aptitude debfoster or
> deborphan. dpkg will _never_ do it for you. apt-get will try to do it
> but at the expense of considerable breakage risk. Bug #310490 show an
> example where the risk is to remove every KDE packages.

I read that wrong at first and thought that KDE was what you meant by
"useless packages".  (:

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: