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

Re: Reasons for recommends and suggests

>>>>> "Hendrik" == Hendrik Sattler <debian@hendrik-sattler.de> writes:

    Hendrik> Perhaps. But first, but not all packages are actually
    Hendrik> strict about that and I do not want to bloat my
    Hendrik> installation and second, if it is really that important
    Hendrik> (read: essential part of functionality) is would be a
    Hendrik> Depends.  Does it really happen that often that this
    Hendrik> Recommends is needed. Or is it just to be on the safe
    Hendrik> side?  Anyway, it was just an example out of many. For
    Hendrik> non-core packages, Recommends often add functionality
    Hendrik> that I'll never use but the package maintainer uses them
    Hendrik> daily. Why should I install it then?

In the past I have seen (broken) packages that recommend "apache"[1].

Huh? Does this mean the package is incompatible with apache2?

In fact, I suspect at least some these packages may work fine with
other httpd daemons that the maintainer didn't know about at the time.

Just because the maintainer recommends that I should have "apache"
installed doesn't mean it will loose functionality if "apache" is not
installed - unless it really is some weird package that depends on
this obsolete version of apache.

A description of "to support the HTTP protocol" would imply that the
version is not important.


[1] as far as I can tell most packages now depend on httpd as an
alternative, so perhaps this specific example is no longer an
issue. However the concept still stands.

I did notice one package (education-main-server) recommends "apache2 |
apache" but I am not going to try and work out if apache is really
required or not.
Brian May <bam@snoopy.debian.net>

Reply to: