Re: [RFC] DEP-6: Meta-Package debian/control field
Roland Mas wrote:
> David Paleino, 2009-12-21 09:13:17 +0100 :
>
> [...]
>
>> I mean, meta-packages should *always* have their Recommends installed,
>> otherwise they have no point in existing.
>
> If it's *always*, then… isn't your proposal pointless? If it's merely
> a *should*, then Recommends is a fine solution.
No, I probably misworded my intention there.
A meta-package should always have their Recommends/Depends/whatever
installed, and shouldn't get uninstalled when one of these gets removed
(either, this removed one should be "blacklisted" someway)
> [...]
>
>> What's the use of a metapackage if you only choose 2-3 from, say, 20-30
>> "dependencies"?
>> You'd better go with selecting those 2-3 directly. At least IMHO :)
>
> And that's what we have tasks for.
"Tasks" aren't for this, I suppose.
> [..]
>
> Then I suggest you just help converting the gnome metapackage to a
> task, since this'll work with no intrusive changes in our tools.
So you're suggesting me to also do a "wicd" task.
In experimental I have "wicd" depending on wicd-daemon + wicd-curses|wicd-
gtk -- (it's a simple case, where the user might manually choose the
components, but it's good for the sake of exampling).
A user having "wicd" installed now, and upgrading to experimental, might
want to remove one of the components:
# apt-get --purge remove wicd-curses
This will also uninstall "wicd", and mark wicd-daemon and wicd-gtk for
autoremoval.
I don't think we should escalate metapackages to tasks, sorry.
--
. ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
: :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
`. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page
`- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
Reply to: