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

Re: Dependencies of metapackages

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 17:37 +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> On mar., 2011-08-30 at 16:11 +0100, Wolodja Wentland wrote:
> > 
> > I agree that a general change of all metapackages is probably not a good idea,
> > but I think that changing the root-nodes of the metapackage tree (i.e.
> > metapackages like gnome, xfce4, kde-full, ...) is a sensible change. It is in
> > particular one that solves the problems without the need to introduce new
> > package fields, change packaging tools or their semantics. 
> If you think some dependencies in those metapackages are unneeded or too
> strong, you're welcome to open a wishlist bug against them.
> For xfce4, while I'm open to discussion, the distinction between
> depends/recommends/suggests is intended, and at first sight I don't see
> a need to change it.

Could you elaborate on your reasons and your intentions for making the
distinction? Do you have reasons for not changing Depends into Recommends? I
will probably file bugs, but do not want to do so if I already know that the
maintainer is not going to change it. I am sincerely interested and my only
motivation is to make Debian a better distribution.

It is just that I know that the behaviour discussed in this thread is a
nuisance for a subset of our users and I wanted to gather additional input
about different strategies to solve this. I tried to come up with a solution
that does not require changes to the packaging tools, the introduction of new
package fields or constitute a major change in the semantics of packages or

All that being said: I still have the opinion that metapackages *are*
different from normal and virtual packages and that, in particular, the
relations they define to other packages conflate distinct relations just
because it eases implementation. (which is not inherently bad).
Wolodja <babilen@gmail.com>

081C B7CD FF04 2BA9 94EA  36B2 8B7F 7D30 CAF1 4EFC

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: