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

Re: gconf transition

Le lundi 09 janvier 2006 à 14:41 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen a écrit :
> | Ladies and gentlemen, this is a perfect example of why linking indirect
> | dependencies is a very bad thing. Let me explain.
> No, it's not.  At least not in the way GTK & friends work.

Why so?

> | Of all binaries shipped with GConf, gconf-sanity-check is the only one
> | using GTK+. The only application using gconf-sanity-check is
> | gnome-session. On first sight, it looks safe to exclude
> | gconf-sanity-check for the computation of gconf dependencies, 
> Uhm, this is where you go wrong.  You can't just exclude binaries
> nilly-willy like this.

Of course I can. The gconf-sanity-check binary is absolutely not
necessary for the rest of the gconf functionality. This is an optional
add-on, which isn't even in /usr/bin. It is perfectly safe to put its
dependencies in Recommends:.

A more elegant solution would be to make a separate package for
gconf-sanity-check, but it is only 11K.
 .''`.           Josselin Mouette        /\./\
: :' :           josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org
`. `'                        joss@debian.org
   `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

Reply to: