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

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 

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: