Re: Clarification on just what the kde metapackages are (was: kdeprint depends on efax)
On Thursday 22 May 2003 23:59, James Michael Greenhalgh wrote:
> On May 22, 2003 05:49 pm, Anders Ellenshxj Andersen wrote:
> > On Thursday 22 May 2003 23:20, Chris Cheney wrote:
> > > You don't even have to install kdeprint at all then... so why are you?
> >
> > Ahh yes. kdebase depends on kdeprint. I guess I can just uninstall the
> > lot..
> >
> > :)
>
> I've seen this issue raised all the time and thought it may be time to
> point out just what the kde metapackages do
>
> - kdebase is a metapackage that depends on various other packages
> - installing kdebase will get all packages that it depends on
> - removing kdebase or a package that kdebase depends on will only remove
> the metapackage kdebase, it *will not remove all packages* kdebase depends
> on. For example in your case it would be, "Well now that we have removed
> kdeprint, the kdebase metapackage is no longer complete, so we have to
> remove it"
> - the same goes for any metapackage...if you get kdenetwork and don't want
> ksirc, if you remove ksirc, it will remove kdenetwork but it will not
> remove all the other depends for kdenetwork
As an aside it is a shame that Debian does not have the concept of a removal
meta-package. So while kdebase installs everything, there is nothing (by
rule, there may be specifics, in this case kdelibs probably) which removes
everything. I suppose what we need is a <meta-package>-remove package for
every meta package. It would depend on nothing, but everything that makes
up the meat of the meta-package (in this case all the kde bits that kdebase
depends on) would depend on it. Then all you would have to do to remove
all the kde bits installed bu kdebase would be to apt-get remove
kdebase-remove.
The alternative would be an option on apt-get remove which said to go down
the tree and remove everything that this depends on that nothing else
depends on (and is not essential). But that could do too deep down the tree.
David
>
> Hoping that clears things up a little,
> James
Reply to: