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

Re: [Fwd: major problem with gnome-games dependency]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 03:13:30AM +0200, Adeodato Simó <asp16@alu.ua.es> was heard to say:
>   As mentioned in [1], we've been considering switching to Recommends
>   for KDE metapackges, and mention in the description about the use of
>   --with-recommends.
>   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?

  The issue of recommendations appearing in new versions is a general
problem, not one specific to metapackages.  I have some code that tries
to detect new recommendations, but I haven't actually used it as a
replacement for the default rule of "only recommendations of newly
installed packages are important".  I need to talk to the apt developers
about how to integrate this (last time I checked apt changes were needed
to get it working), then test it.

  In addition to forcing the program to follow recommendations, the
other thing to deal with is the interaction between metapackages and
"cruft removal".  I think you could deal with that using the rule that
"when a metapackage is placed into manual mode, so are all its
(pre)dependencies and recommendations".  This would make it annoying to
put a metapackage back into automatic mode, but it's safe and not hard

  I don't remember if there are any bugs open about metapackages, but
they aren't especially useful until we have a way of formally
identifying metapackages; e.g., by adding a "Metapackage: yes" header in
the control file.  On the other hand, debtags does flag metapackages, and
I can probably work with that for the time being.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: