Re: Woody source frustration!

[Adam C Powell IV <hazelsct@mit.edu>]

Christian Marillat wrote:

> >>>> "ACPI" == Adam C Powell IV <hazelsct@mit.edu> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> >>  On to another topic, I still feel it's odd to have gnome-control-center
> >> depend on gnome-core, and wonder if this (binary) dependency should be
>
> I think you mean libcapplet0 ?

Right, gnome-core depends on libcapplet0 because of the capplets, this is
understandable.  Likewise, gnome-core Build-Depends on libcapplet-dev.

But the gnome-control-center binary package also depends on gnome-core.  I'm not
sure I understand why this is.  What happens if someone has gnome-control-center
installed, but not gnome-core?  Or gnome-control-center 1.2.2, but a potato
version of gnome-core?

> >> removed.  It's puzzling to be building and installing the source packages
> >> in the proper order and have one of the built binaries be uninstallable
> >> because of a missing dependency- which isn't supposed to be built yet.
>
> I can remove this dependency because gnome-core include some capplet for the
> gnome-control-center :
>
> gnome-hint-properties-capplet
> gnome-panel-properties-capplet

So gnome-core depends on libcapplet0, but you can remove the
gnome-control-center binary package dependency on gnome-core?

Looking at it the other way, can someone have these capplets from gnome-core
installed without gnome-control-center?  If not, maybe the gnome-core binary
should depend on gnome-control-center...

Thanks again,

-Adam P.

              Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe!