Re: Meta-gnome3 dependency on xul-ext-adblock-plus (Bug #689858)
Johannes Rohr <jorohr <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
> Dear GNOME maintainers,
>
> while I do use adblock plus with Iceweasel, it seems a bit arbitrary to
> me that the gnome meta package declares a dependency on it. Adblock plus
> is not part of the GNOME desktop. In addition, it pulls in iceweasel
> which also isn't. What is the rationale behind this decision?
>
> Until now, I had assumed, that the policy regarding Debian's GNOME
> desktop was to closely reflect the official GNOME desktop as defined by
> upstream. I see that the gnome metapackage is not totally strict on
> that, but still, most packages which are not part of the official GNOME
> release are suggests or recommends, not depends. Why this exception, for
> a package which isn't even based on the GNOME platform?
>
> BTW: I do keep on using adblock plus myself, however, there are some who
> dislike it since the developer has begun to generate revenues through
> paid-for exclusion from the filter lists for some types of ads.
> Therefore, as I understand, some people are now using different adblockers.
>
> So I would suggest to at least lower the dependency to suggests, if not
> to drop it from the dependencies altogether.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Johannes
>
>
I agree completely with Johannes. I use Debian/Linux because it is not
Windows and I want to control what is installed on my computer. My opinion
is that anything that is not strictly required in order to make a package
work should not be a dependency, only a recommendation. I don't want ads to
be blocked, I don't want extra code bulking up my tools, and I don't want to
have to even think about having to disable some functionality that I never
wanted installed in the first place.
Reply to: