Re: Recommends for metapackages
Andreas Tille <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> It's a meta-package, that pulls in a platform. If I install it, I want
>> the full platform, always. That's about it. If I install mono-complete,
>> I want the whole bloody thing, always.
> I think the attempt to ensure something always is not reasonable because
> if the admin decided to break the system in whatever way chances are low
> that you can do this.
And if the admin broke his system, I stop caring. Neither Recommends,
nor Depends will help there.
> You also can not do this "always" if I as a local
> admin do some fancy stuff with preferences to get the dependency
> resolution from somewhere else or do some fancy tricks with equivs. So
> your always argument is void for other ways to break my machine.
Indeed so. But that, too, is outside of the scope. When I say "always",
I meant it as "on my system, wearing my root hat". What other people do
to their system, is none of my business.
> You have intentionally broken your system as it was defined in policy
> and you now try one way to fix your personal broken system on all other
> systems which are not broken in this specific way.
Erm, how have I broken my system? I did not. (Turning Install-Recommends
off is definitely not breaking my system, FYI.)
> I have not read the whole thread but it seems to me that you have
> ignored the system of recommends.
Alas, I did not, and I explained it elsewhere in this thread why and how
Recommends would break expectations, and why they are inferior to
Depends, as far as meta-packages are concerned.
I also presented ways to improve the current situation, none of which
involve Recommend, and neither would break any system, nor expectations,
and as such, are superior to Recommends - at least when talking about