-=| Russ Allbery, 19.05.2014 13:21:41 -0700 |=-
> Damyan Ivanov <dmn@debian.org> writes:
>
> > The note in the Release Notes would mean that users of unstable will not
> > notice the removal, but I guess this is a price to be paid. Bugging
> > each and every upgrade with a NEWS.Debian entry seems like
> > spam. 'perl-base' is ranked #1 in popcon. Hmm, perhaps add a NEWS.Debian
> > entry and remove it before Jessie? (this starts to have too many moving
> > parts :))
>
> perl-base isn't the relevant package, though, isn't it? This would be for
> perl. (Or were some of those modules in base?)
perl has a 99.59% installation rate :)
> I think NEWS.Debian is appropriate. It's certainly used for things
> that people generally care about less (such as all new CAs in the
> ca-certificates package), and people have to make an intentional choice to
> install apt-listchanges to see the upgrade notifications. I think this is
> exactly the sort of situation that NEWS.Debian was intended for: a
> backwards-incompatible change in the packaging.
Thanks. This convinces me. I guess I erred on the "don't possibly harm
anyone" side.
> I vote for documenting this in NEWS.Debian, retaining Depends
> *maybe* for one release at most, and then downgrading to at least
> Recommends with a goal of removing the dependency entirely in the
> long run.
Niko commented on IRC that removal of automatically installed packages
that are no longer depended on is fine, since apt/aptitude gives
a warning about this, IOW there is no silent breakage. And if people
blindly click "Next>>" it's not something we can fix.
Another point that Niko raised and with whis I tend to agree is that
Recommends may be better than a hard dependency since that would
satisfy the needs of the people that care more about disk size than
about safety
Cheers,
dam
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature