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

Re: Dependencies of metapackages

>>>>> Wolodja Wentland <babilen@gmail.com> writes:

 > is there a specific reason why metapackages depend rather then
 > recommend packages they are meant to pull in?

 > The rationale behind this question is [0] that we see a plethora of
 > users in #debian who ask questions like: "Why did apt remove all my
 > system??⸘!!!!one!one!eleven!"

 > and we have to explain to them that it is because they decided to
 > remove one of (typically) gnome's dependencies, which caused the
 > metapackage to be removed as well.  The solution is then to either
 > mark all other dependencies as manually installed, install a smaller
 > metapackage or a combination of those.

	Since turning these dependencies into Recommends: is apparently
	infeasible, it may be useful to amend APT to automatically mark
	the metapackage's dependencies as manually installed if the
	metapackage itself is so marked.

	Or do I miss something obvious with this approach?

	(Sorry, I'm not familiar with the subject.  Beyond knowing to
	avoid metapackages at all costs, i. e.)


FSF associate member #7257	Coming soon: Software Freedom Day
http://mail.sf-day.org/lists/listinfo/ planning-ru (ru), sfd-discuss (en)

Reply to: