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

Re: Recommends for metapackages


> > > "essential parts of what the upstream GNOME project has to offer" - as

> > > its package description also clearly reflects.

> >

> > And NM is not essential in my point of view


> Your view is irrelevant here: GNOME project considers it essential.


Gnome view is the one irrelevant. This is Debian GNU/Linux, not Gnome GNU/Linux. We need to care for our users (both proficient and novice [1]), not for Gnome developers desires. And if they had a flawed design we can patch, we should do as we do with any other flawed software.



> > As said before, I'm not looking for a minimal gnome, but for a typical

> > gnome installation.


> No, you are looking for an *atypical* installation, want Debian to

> provide a meta-package that fits your needs.


What is typical is a user who install Recommends by default, so that user will have the same packages if he installs a gnome-core with n-m as Recommends as if he install a gnome-core with n-m as Depends.


And since typical users will receive the same packages, we can care for not-so-typical users and do The Correct Thing: have n-m as a Recommend. The Policy reads about Recommends, very clearly, that it is to be used for packages to be found on all but rare installations. Let's obey the Policy.


[1] Proficent users may want to install gnome easyly, but not to have n-m as it will probably break their systems or just make their Pidgin not to work properly. This can be achieved by having n-m as a Recommends. Novice users want to install gnome easyly and to manage ther network easyly, and also to manage their packages easyly, and that means installing metapackages and having these pulling in Recommends by default. So both kinds of users will benefit by having n-m as a Recommend. Only angry users would be a) Gnome developers/fanboys, and b)...well, there is no b).



Noel Torres

er Envite

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: