Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5
Joey Hess <email@example.com> writes:
> Steve Greenland wrote:
>> Sure, it allows some one to install foo-data without the program that
>> uses it? So what? It's unlikely to happen by accident, and annoying to
>> those doing it intentionally. (Just like those foo-docs that depend on
>> foo, although they are mostly fixed, now.)
> I don't buy the often-made argument that foo-data packages are
> generally useful to install just to look at the beautiful data.
As a casual user, if I want the "foo" functionality, I'll probably
want to install foo and not even look at foo-data.
Another point of view of this problem can be expressed this way:
- foo without foo-data is *broken* hence the need for a dependency.
- foo-data without foo is not broken (because there's not program to
invoke), but is *useless*.
May be a better solution would be to flag foo-data as "useless alone".
(I would love to be able to hide from aptitude all these "useless
alone" packages so I could sift faster in the package list).
"Delivering successful solutions requires giving people what they
need, not what they want." Kurt Bittner