Re: Introducing DoudouLinux
On 08/14/2011 07:23 PM, Jean-Michel Philippe wrote:
> Alright then, sure I knew the rules!
Do we have a concrete case of this to discuss, or are we still talking
about hypotheticals? The reason I ask is, I know for certain
dependencies (gnome metapackages mostly, but others may exist,) there
have been prior bug filings tagged 'wontfix', so before expending the
effort, it's a good idea to check that out first. In the case of
metapackages it is more of a judgement call of the developer than a
strictly technical argument about what is needed and what isn't because
a metapackage is nothing more than a convenience. What the developer who
maintains it finds convenient may not be what you find convenient. In
such a case, it's probably better to come up with a metapackage of your
own than to try to argue with the developer on the issue.
>> If a conflicting package is installed on the system you can not install
>> the metapackage and the package management program (aptitude, synaptic,
>> ...) will warn you about this and ask for advise.
>
> Do you mean we could partly remove dependencies of a meta-package by
> putting it in a broken status?
So now we're talking about metapackages ... OK. We've kind of flipped
topics, then, from talking about wrong dependencies that bloat a package
vs. dependencies that are inconvenient in a metapackage that bloat our
CD image. Let's make sure we're on the same page. As for stating a
conflicts to negate recommends from a metapackage, I think this may
cause more problems than it solves, as a recommends is "soft" (you can
remove a package that is recommended without breaking anything) but
conflicts are "hard" (once you conflict with a package you can never
install it without removing the conflicting package!) So we sacrifice
flexibility. Pinning doesn't have this problem, if done properly, as it
can give us precisely the amount of flexibility we want, no more and no
less.
Ben
Reply to: