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

Re: Bug#980396: inkscape: most icons missing until librsvg2-common installed



Good catch!

I tried uninstalling librsvg2-common and the icons went away again.

I wish I noticed this before making my bug report.

My heart goes out to those with unusual architectures, I ran Linux on
PowerPC on my only computer from about 2001 to 2007. That was
certainly difficult at times. But... I think the best solution is to
make librsvg2-common a Depends of inkscape. I think Recommends is for
things that enable features, but are not required to enable primary
thing the program does. The primary thing inkscape does is provide an
editing gui, and it cannot do that without librsvg2-common. If having
headless inkscape on unusual architectures is important enough, then a
inkscape-headless package could be built. If that use case is not
important enough to warrant a package variation then I would argue
it's also not important enough to break the inkscape gui for everyone
who doesn't automatically install recursive Depends dependencies...
though I understand that folks turning off auto-install of recommends
are a minority too.

That said, making librsvg2-common a direct Recommends of inkscape
would have saved me a lot of trouble, and I would appreciate that too.


P.S. I know turning off auto-install of Recommends sometimes requires
me to put in a bit of extra time, but I hope that at some of those
times I stumble across something in the debian packaging that can be
improved, so this extra time I spend is occasionally useful to others.
I turn off auto-Reccomends because many many packages put stuff in
Recommends that I don't need, and in the rare cases that I have to
install a Recommends to get a feature I want, it's a direct Recommend
so it's easy/quick for me to find and install.

P.P.S. It seems like rust is here to stay, I hope that folks with a
passion for new/unusual architectures will put their energy into
getting rust support for their architecture of choice.


Reply to: