Re: Building GTK programs without installing dconf-service?
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 07:22:33PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> Which point in the dependency chain do you think should be weakened from
> Depends to Recommends? I think the dependency from libgtk-3-0-common
> generated by dh_installgsettings is probably the most appropriate, or at
> least, least inappropriate?
I believe that full Depends is ok. The original reporter's problem wasn't
about bloat, but about libgtk-3's dependency chain pulling in system-sysv in
a way that makes apt refuse to install it otherwise without some obscure
knowledge on the part of the user, that eludes even some DDs.
> When an angry user turns up on the BTS complaining that GTK has a
> grave bug (configuration lost) or a serious bug (Policy §3.5, missing
> dependencies), is there consensus that this should be considered to
> be not-a-bug and closed?
Aye, good point.
> I thought I remembered Policy having something to say about weakening
> shared libraries' dependencies on services to Recommends or weaker
> (e.g. libdbus-1-3 only Recommends dbus and does not depend on it, even
> though it's of little use without dbus), but now I can't find it in
> Policy, and I also can't find a bug asking for that. Does this exist,
> or did I imagine it?
That proposal was about moving Depends:/Recommends: relationships, not about
removing them. Since, as you describe, the programs would still require
*conf to save their data, it wouldn't fix this particular problem.
One idea I have would be to change the way dbus-session is chosen, with
a real metapackage that defaults to dbus-user-session if systemd is already
installed or dbus-x11 if not, but that's just brainstorming, and my brain
hasn't slept in 60 hours.
Meow!
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian is one big family. Including that weird uncle
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ and ultra-religious in-laws.
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀
Reply to: