[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

desktopnova (rename packages or change dependencies?)

Hello mentors,

I’m the maintainer of the desktopnova package[1]. At the moment I’m trying to
fix bug #583756[2]. The binary packages have circular dependencies.

Currently there are four binary packages:
 * desktopnova
 * desktopnova-module-gnome
 * desktopnova-module-xfce
 * desktopnova-tray

desktopnova depends on desktopnova-module-gnome | desktopnova-module-xfce
desktopnova-module-* depends on desktopnova (=$version)

This quote from my reply to the bug report should describe the situation:
> The main package “desktopnova” provides only the user interface and the
> background daemon. The daemon uses modules (plugins) which contain the
> features the user expects. These modules are packaged as
> “desktopnova-modules-*”. Before the modules are fully loaded, the version of
> the main program and the modules are checked. If they’re not equal, the module
> is discarded.
> No error will be raised if the main program has no modules or the
> modules are installed without the main package. But if the main package is
> installed, the version must (ok, should -- no error will be raised either) be
> equal to the version of the installed modules.

As far as I can see, there are currently two ways to avoid circular

 (1) Remove the circular dependencies by using recommendations:
     * desktopnova-module-* Depends desktopnova (=$version)
     * desktopnova Recommends desktopnova-module-gnome|desktopnova-module-xfce

 (2) Rename the binary packages to:
     * desktopnova-gnome
     * desktopnova-xfce
     * desktopnova-common

Both solution have their disadvantages.

Solution #1 leaves the packages inconsistent, because in a normal situation the
users want to have at least one module installed. But the users would see the
desktopnova package first and so they can’t select the desktop environment on
their own. This would complicate the process of installing the package from my
point of view.

Solution #2 is much better, because the users would be able to choose their
supported desktop environment without any side effects. But the package is
very new in the Debian archive (only one upload so far) and as far as I know
renaming is not considered as the best way to go in many situations.

Unfortunately the idea with the better package names arrived after uploading
them to the Debian archive.

My mentor/sponsor also says, that renaming would be the better solution, but
before doing so I should ask on the mailing list for more comments.

I would be happy about any suggestions.

Thanks in advance,

[1] http://packages.qa.debian.org/desktopnova
[2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=583756

Reply to: