Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies
Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> writes:
> Le mardi 28 juin 2005 à 11:10 +0200, Arnaud Patard a écrit :
>> Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> writes:
>> > I don't see why they should be split, even though they are different.
>> > The split would have a sense if gnome-control-center wasn't installed by
>> > default, but this isn't the case as our policy is to make gnome-core
>> > depend on it.
>>
>> Okay. But would that mean unsplitting packages that are in gnome-core
>> depends ? I'll tend to say no (maybe I'm wrong)..., so why should the
>> g-c-c be a particular case ?
>
> Erm, g-c-c is the only package with such a split. Other splits are
> justified by separating architecture-independent data or shared
> libraries. I don't know of other splits, but if there are, we should
> probably unsplit them the same way.
okay. Things are clearer now. At time of writing I though there was some
other packages in same case but after a quick search didn't find any.
>
> The point of unsplitting g-c-c is that most users that would only want
> capplets (users running a full GNOME desktop) are using gnome-core,
> which in turn depends on g-c-c. If there are users of the g-c-c
> interface, they install g-c-c, which in turn depends on capplets.
You may also make gnome-core depends on capplets and not g-c-c :)
But users of gnome-core will also want to use g-c-c. So this
explanation has more sens to me than the previous ones. This taken into
account, I'm fine with the change.
> Given that g-c-c is only 200 KB, unsplitting makes a lot of sense.
Nowadays, we have big hard drives so imho, size is no more a big matter
Regards,
Arnaud
Reply to: