Re: Meta-gnome3 dependency on xul-ext-adblock-plus (Bug #689858)

[Johannes Rohr <jorohr@gmail.com>]

Michael Biebl wrote:

[...]


>> 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.
> 
> Then don't use the meta packges (they are empty and don't provide any
> functionality). Then pick and choose to your liking.
 
Sure, nobody has to use metapackages. Heck, nobody even has to use Debian. 
So what? Still, the question remains what the most sensible choice is.

My perception had been that Debian tries to ship a version of GNOME which is 
untampered with, unlike those shipped by other distributions, so that, if 
you install gnome or gnome-core, you can be reasonably certain that your 
desktop largely corresponds to the upstream release. 

This is more than just a matter of principle, it is also a matter of 
housekeeping. Adblock draws in iceweasel, Xulrunner and all that comes with 
it. These simply are not part of the GNOME desktop and they are not required 
to have a functioning and feature-complete GNOME desktop.

Now, maybe there is a good reason to include this package into the GNOME 
desktop metapackage, but if there is one, I'd like to know what it is. What 
is the rationale behind this decision? How do you define what is part of 
GNOME and what isn't?

Thanks,

Johannes